Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 19 Sep 2013

Vol. 814 No. 1

Topical Issue Debate

Mental Health Services Provision

We tried to have this raised as a topical issue in July and as our chance has been quite a while coming, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the matter today. I am glad that the Minister is here to discuss it.

In 2008 we were told that one in seven people had a mental health issue. We know recent figures suggest the number is now one in four. A recent report from Headstrong indicates that almost one third of young people are experiencing mental distress. We all experience some mental distress, but it is much more severe for some people and we need services to help such individuals.

The cross-party group in the Oireachtas is made up of representatives from all of the political parties. I am the Independents' representative. We have made our own pre-budget submission which I am sure has been passed to the Minister. Such action is indicative of the seriousness of the issue and the way in which we are treating it, regardless of our political background. Supporting the mental health of the population before it reaches crisis point makes very good economic sense.

The crux of the issue is that 414 staff were promised for recruitment in 2012, as well as 477 in 2013. The numbers look fabulous on paper and they amount to almost 900 posts. Nevertheless, it was alarming to read in the July HSE staff census that the net increase between December 2012 and July 2013 was just 192. I raised an aspect of this matter as a topical issue in March when the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Brian Hayes, indicated that the HSE aimed to fill the remaining posts by the end of March 2013, but that has not happened.

What is the net increase in the number of posts? Of the 414 and 477 posts, how many mental health service posts are being taken up by people who were previously employed in mental health services? Who is doing their work if they are to be moved to a new post? We know what the ideal composition is of community mental health teams.

I welcome the opportunity to join Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan in seeking clarity on the issue of mental health funding and an update from the Minister for Health on the delivery of community-based mental health services. I recognise the Minister's commitment and thank him for being in the House to deal with this most serious issue.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan has already outlined how serious the issue is and I know the Minister is well aware of it. It is heartening that politicians on all sides of the House and from different backgrounds, as well as civic society, are united in a desire to do more to promote positive mental health. It is possibly the only issue on which we will unite in advance of the next budget, hence our pre-budget submission.

There is no room for complacency. We must have another €35 million allocated for mental health services in 2014 to build on the delivery of community mental health services. The Minister recognises that right across the health sector. However, the allocation of money in itself is not enough. We must ensure it is spent efficiently and effectively in the correct areas. With that in mind, I have three key questions, some of which have been raised by Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan.

Of the 414 posts allocated in 2012, how many were filled by existing workers in mental health services and have the vacated positions been filled? How many of the 477 posts included in the service plan for this year will be filled by the end of the year? What is the net increase in the staffing figure for mental health services? I know that the July HSE staffing census indicated a net increase of 192 between December 2012 and July 2013. Will we achieve the figure of approximately 900 places by the end of 2013?

I am proud to be part of a Government that is continuing to invest more resources in mental health services, but it is very important that we keep probing and questioning in order that we can ensure value for money in the community.

I thank both Deputies for giving me the opportunity to update the House on the current position in the provision of additional funding for mental health services in 2013.

Following on from the special allocation of €35 million and 414 posts provided for mental health in 2012, an additional €35 million was allocated in budget 2013 for the continued development of our mental health services across a range of headings, including the development of forensic services and community mental health teams for adults, children, older persons and mental health intellectual disability. A total of 477 posts have been approved from this allocation and as of 26 August 2013, 220 of these posts had been accepted with a further 24 posts offered to candidates. Of the 233 remaining posts, 162 are at various stages in the recruitment process. These posts are additional to the additional 414 posts funded in 2012, of which 397 have either been filled or are awaiting clearance.

The national recruitment service, NRS, creates national panels in anticipation of vacancies. On occasion, however, it is difficult to fill posts for various reasons, including availability of qualified candidates and geographical location. In addition, specific specialist staff are required to fill a number of posts and the NRS and the mental health services are working to further improve the process to allow for more bespoke and specialised panels to meet local service needs and maximise successful recruitment. I have received assurances from the HSE that the recruitment process for the new posts being funded in 2013 and any outstanding posts approved in 2012 is being given priority within the HSE.

In recognising the pivotal role that primary care has in addressing the mental health needs of the population, €5 million was made available in 2012 for the provision of counselling services in primary care, specifically for people with mental health problems. An additional €2.5 million has been provided this year for the continued roll-out of this service from this special year's allocation for mental health. A total of €4 million of the additional funding provided in 2012 and 2013 was also provided to the HSE's national office for suicide prevention, NOSP, and this additional investment has led to work being progressed on almost every recommendation in Reach Out, our national strategy for action on suicide prevention, including a number of new service initiatives in this area. The NOSP also continues to fund more than 40 organisations and programmes, which are engaged in the delivery of front-line services for people who are in emotional distress, engaged in self-harm or who have been bereaved through suicide.

I reiterate the Government's commitment to the continued development of our mental health services in the community in line with A Vision for Change and Reach Out and our determination to tackle this widespread problem in our society over the past number of years.

I thank the Minister for his reply and I acknowledge the positive work that is going on but there is a need for greater transparency. We are not sure how much of the €35 million ring-fenced for mental health services in 2012 was spent on these services. This sector should not have to pick up the bill for the overspend in other HSE sectors. I would like the HSE to spell out accurately where the €35 million is being spent annually.

How many people have been transferred from residential institutions and residential care to community care? That was recommended in the 1984 report. How much progress has been made on that? Last night, there was a meeting with HSE officials about the new primary care centre planned for Summerhill in the north inner city and I would like to acknowledge the commitment to mental services in this proposed centre.

I thank the Minister for his helpful reply, which gives us clarity about the issue that was not available until the provision of these figures. I take his point about geography and qualifications. It is important that we have people in the correct places with the appropriate skill set. We need to examine prevention and the promotion of positive mental health. While it is not the Minister's direct responsibility, there is a void in this area in our schools. Deputy O'Sullivan, myself and representatives of other parties have had meetings about this. Some schools are leading the way and we have been briefed about the Scottish model. A whole school curriculum approach is needed to promoting positive mental health. Children as young as four are taught to look after their teeth and to brush them but mental health issues are not mentioned until they are 15 when it is referred to vaguely in the SPHE curriculum. We need to consider an age appropriate way to let everybody know that they need to protect their mental health. I ask the Minister and the Minister of State with responsibility for mental health to co-ordinate that with the Department of Education and Skills.

I thank both Members for raising this important issue. It is emotive, particularly at this time of year as some children leave the school system and others enter examinations year. Intellectual disability is also to the fore given the issues parents face about the placement of their children in the adult services when they leave school. I had a conversation with a departmental official earlier who said that the issue is well on the way to resolution. I acknowledge it is not particularly related to the matter raised but it is of growing concern to many people.

Deputy Harris said this is an issue on which we all agree and I hope it will not be the only one. I hope we all agree to fight tobacco and put that issue out of harm's way from the point of view of the next generation of children. The payback for that will be three decades away but it will be enormous. There is a walk for Aware starting from outside the House tomorrow week and going to Ashbourne, County Meath. I invite as many Deputies, Senators and staff as possible to join us on that walk.

Deputy O'Sullivan asked how much of the €35 million allocation was spent on mental health services. My understanding is it was all spent on these services. She also asked a reasonable question about the number of people transferred from institutional care to the community. I cannot answer the question but I will revert to her or I will ensure the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, does because I am interested in this important issue.

Deputy Harris raised the issue of addressing mental health issues on the school curriculum. I concur with him and I will raise it with the Ministers for Children and Youth Affairs and Education and Skills. This is the first Government to appoint at principal officer level a civil servant to address issues such as intellectual disability, autism and obesity across my Department and those two Departments.

There is an opportunity through this office to put mental health on the curriculum. We are forever saying we want to destigmatise it and that it should be treated the same way as other health issues. It does not make sense that we should not start talking about it until children are in their late teens. We should be talking about it much earlier.

National Policy on Graffiti

I thank the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government for being present to take this debate. We need to develop a national policy on graffiti. Graffiti is an issue in parts of Limerick city in my constituency. Recently, it has been an issue along a stretch of roadway known as the Superquinn road which runs from the Kilmurry roundabout to the Monaleen Road. I am glad that the local authorities in Limerick have agreed to remove the graffiti and that they are considering the installation of CCTV cameras to monitor this issue.

Graffiti represents an invasion of private property. Many of the people affected bought their houses at high prices and walls at the back of their homes are being graffitied, which is upsetting for them. Many of them are either elderly or have young families. The younger people bought their homes at the height of the Celtic tiger boom. The Department oversees many good practices to deal with graffiti on a national level. Local authorities can avail of a €900,000 grant under the anti-litter and anti-graffiti campaign. There is a national litter action plan and a national litter pollution monitoring system. In addition, a new website, www.fixyourarea.ie, has been operational since 1 January this year through which anyone can report a problem in their area, including graffiti, and the local authority will respond within two days.

At the moment the legislation that covers graffiti is 16 years old. I refer to section 19 of the Litter Pollution Act 1997. It makes no mention of graffiti whatsoever. I call for the development of a national policy on graffiti which takes into account updating section 19 of the Litter Pollution Act 1997 to deal with graffiti. The approach should be standard practice across all local authorities.

We could consider the application of a levy to aerosol spray cans. I come from the perspective of damage to private property and public property. We must consider alternative ways of dealing with graffiti that do not involve the invasion of private property or public property without permission and ensure it is done tastefully. I welcome the Minister’s views on the matter and on developing a national policy on graffiti. The current problem of graffiti in Limerick city requires the bringing together of a range of measures that are happening at national level in a structured way. I thank the Minister for his presence and I look forward to hearing his comments.

I thank Deputy O'Donnell for raising this important issue. I am fully aware of the blight on communities which graffiti causes and I am totally committed to tackling graffiti vandalism. The programme for Government 2011 included a commitment to establish a website to assist residents with the reporting of problems with street lighting, drainage, graffiti, waste collection and road and path maintenance in neighbourhoods, with a guarantee that local officials would respond within two working days. The scheme was piloted by South Dublin County Council. The fixyourstreet.ie website is structured around an interactive map, allowing anyone to locate the precise location of a range of non-emergency local problems they wish to report. An important benefit of the approach is the effective use of modern technology such as social networking, web-based collaboration, mobile telephone applications and geographic information systems, GIS, in an interactive manner with the public. The fixyourstreet.ie website is now accessible in all local authority areas since 1 January 2013.

Under the Litter Pollution Acts 1997 to 2009, the primary responsibility for management and enforcement responses to litter pollution, including the defacement of structures by writing or other marks, lies with local authorities. In my view, that includes graffiti. The role of my Department is to provide the legislative framework within which local authorities can perform this task. It is a matter for each local authority to decide on the most appropriate public awareness and clean-up actions to deal with graffiti, taking account of local circumstances and priorities. Each local authority must determine the level of expenditure on individual local services, but I would hope in the context of the annual estimates process that they would prioritise the elimination of graffiti.

As the Deputy indicated, section 19 of the 1997 Litter Pollution Act makes it an offence to deface property visible from a public place without the written authority of the relevant owner, occupier or person in charge. Again, in my view that includes graffiti. A local authority or its agents may, on such terms and conditions as may be agreed by it with the occupier, enter and take remedial action to remove or otherwise remedy the defacement.

Section 20 is a complementary provision that enables a local authority, in the interests of amenity or the environment, to take remedial action in relation to graffiti, regardless of whether it has been put up with the consent of the owner or occupier. The local authority may serve a notice on the occupier requiring steps to be taken to remove or otherwise remedy the defacement within a specified period of not less than seven days. Failure to comply with a notice is an offence and, in such instance, the local authority may give effect to the notice and recover costs. The local authority may also, by arrangement with the occupier, take steps to remedy the defacement. The local authority or its agents may also, by agreement, enter and remedy the defacement itself.

The penalties attaching to littering and graffiti offences are substantial and include an on-the-spot fine of €150. The Protection of the Environment Act 2003 introduced conviction on indictment for litter and graffiti offences, with a maximum fine of €130,000, and set the maximum fine on summary conviction at €3,000.

In addition to the Litter Pollution Acts, the Criminal Damage Act 1991 provides for the offence of damaging or defacing property. The Garda takes the defacing of, and damage to, property very seriously and, when such offences are detected, perpetrators are processed through the courts or via the juvenile liaison system, as appropriate.

As part of the overall response to dealing with graffiti, my Department operates an anti-litter and anti-graffiti awareness grant scheme, whereby local authorities can apply for funding for projects aimed at raising awareness of litter and graffiti issues in their functional areas. Under the scheme, the maximum grant allowed per project may be up to 70% of the project cost. Local authorities are asked to focus their activities under the scheme on young people and, in particular, on schools and community groups with an emphasis on encouraging long-term behavioural change. Grants can cover a broad range of measures to raise public awareness and to stimulate anti-litter and anti-graffiti activity at local level. I refer to measures such as local clean-ups and primary and secondary school competitions. The provision of anti-litter and anti-graffiti materials, videos, posters, information leaflets, and anti-litter and anti-graffiti exhibitions are eligible for grant aid. As Deputy O’Donnell indicated, a total of €900,000 was allocated to local authorities from the environment fund under the scheme in 2013.

I thank the Minister for his response. From what he outlined it appears that a range of measures are being undertaken. I would like the Department to examine specifically the issue of graffiti. Graffiti is applied to people’s property without their knowledge or permission and it is often extremely difficult to remove. We must consider putting in place a measure to prevent the offence occurring or the provision of alternatives allowing people to indulge in graffiti without impacting on private property, which is extremely upsetting and borders on vandalism. We could also consider the provision of a levy on aerosol cans that would deter people from vandalising homes. I feel very strongly about the issue. Following a relatively quick review perhaps areas could be identified that could be added to existing measures to deal with graffiti. It is a problem in my constituency generally but the problem is acute in certain areas. It is extremely upsetting to residents. Having examined the legislative measures to which the Minister referred, I expect that the Department could identify whether there are aspects of the legislation that could be enhanced to deal with this growing phenomenon.

As the Deputy knows, I am very much aware of the issues arising for communities where graffiti presents a significant challenge. Every community, not just Limerick, is affected by the issue. I note the Deputy’s concern and his suggestion that a levy would be imposed on aerosol paints. I appreciate the helpful nature of his comments. I am prepared to re-examine the legislation to see where graffiti could be specifically targeted. There is always room for improvement and we can certainly review the legislation.

Local authorities have considerable powers at the moment but they might not always have the resources or prioritise resources to tackle the problem of graffiti. Enforcement of the legislation requires resources. We have powers under the Litter Pollution Acts that might not be implemented to the full by local authorities currently and the Deputy might be able to improve the situation through his representations in Limerick. The solution to graffiti lies in a combination of various approaches - personal responsibility, education and anti-graffiti initiatives, which are supported by the Department – but the issue must be prioritised more by some local authorities.

Priory Hall Development

The very belated announcement of a 21-day deadline for a resolution of the crucial mortgage and banking elements of the Priory Hall disaster is welcome. However, the whole nation is exasperated by the terrible treatment of Priory Hall owner-occupiers and residents, who are essentially victims of an outrageous fraud. The response of the Government over the past two and a half years, especially the refusal to meet residents, has been deplorable and shocking. The Government often seems to be more concerned about protecting bankers and developers than rehousing and urgently resolving the appalling mess at Priory Hall. On 16 July last, the Minister indicated to me that it was inappropriate for him to comment on the 16-month resolution process. Just a few weeks later, however, it collapsed. It is disgraceful that neither Members of this House nor the residents were kept informed about the process.

More than anything, former residents, owner-occupiers, desperately want a fresh start and to move to new homes. They want to be permitted to transfer mortgages to new homes of their choice and to have existing mortgages written down. At a recent meeting of the finance committee, several of the banks and mortgage providers give their usual harsh and ruthless responses. I welcome the belated positive response of Mr. David Duffy of Allied Irish Banks and Mr. Jeremy Masding of Permanent TSB. The other rescued pillar bank, Bank of Ireland, and the publicly owned EBS must also recognise the unique nature of Priory Hall. IBRC should also be ordered to facilitate Priory Hall families. The Minister has special responsibility to ensure that foreign-owned banks, including foreign state-owned banks such as Ulster Bank, Bank of Scotland, Certus and KBC, also do what is necessary to transfer and write down household mortgages at Priory Hall.

The planning of the north fringe of Dublin city is an ongoing disaster. Former residents and constituents want Priory Hall's main street or boulevard to be demolished and replaced by a new properly built and sustainable development. A figure of €12 million has been mooted by the Minister. I urge him to make an announcement on that.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for the opportunity to raise again the issue of Priory Hall in the Dáil. I welcome, in particular, the statements by the Taoiseach and Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government in the past week and the Tánaiste's statement today that the resolution of this debacle is the Government's priority. The resolution has been my priority from the outset, as it has been for the local residents. The residents are the innocent party, who, through no fault of their own, are not able to live in their homes which they paid well for. Quite rightly, the city council has been housing the residents in alternative accommodation. That will continue until this housing crisis is fully resolved.

The major issue for homeowners, which I have raised with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, the Taoiseach and Minister for Finance, is the outstanding mortgages of the homeowners. There is a major injustice in having to pay a mortgage for a property that lies empty and which cannot be lived in. There are homeowners whose interest payments to their banks are increasing all the time. They are being charged interest on interest and their credit ratings are being downgraded constantly, which is very unfair.

We all know that Priory Hall is the worst example of substandard construction in Ireland. Its poor construction shows up the inadequate building regulation that existed during the Celtic tiger years. The Minister has addressed that. Yesterday, I raised the issue of Priory Hall with the Taoiseach on the Order of Business and requested that he immediately put in place a process to keep local public representatives and the residents' committee of Priory Hall updated on all developments involving the various interested parties, including the banks, Dublin City Council and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. Unfortunately, over the past two years, there has been a lack of information and transparency at times regarding the process, which has greatly added to the anxiety of residents. I have maintained regular contact with Dublin City Council, the Department and the Minister at all times regarding this matter. I have been concerned at times over little information being forthcoming. I am delighted the Taoiseach has now agreed to the request by me to put in place a formal reporting process.

As stated, the unfolding tragedy of Priory Hall was brought home with real force to the entire country with the emotional interview of Stephanie Meehan on the “Late Late Show” and by the sad death of her partner, Fiachra Daly, in July. Over the past two years, the stresses and strains of the disaster of Priory Hall have been taking a considerable toll on all of the 250 people evacuated from the building. Their dire circumstances have been a sad reflection on the Government's inaction. The collapse of Mr. Justice Finnegan's mediation process, as alluded to by Deputy Broughan, marked another blow to their hopes of a fair resolution.

This morning during Leaders' Questions, the Tánaiste indicated that the Government will finally ensure the Priory Hall situation will be resolved within the 21 days, as indicated last week. I understand that officials from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government have been instructed to meet Dublin City Council, the Irish Banking Federation, NAMA, former residents and other stakeholders and to report back with a proposed resolution. After two years of failure to act, during which the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government refused consistently to meet the residents affected by these dire circumstances, can he state categorically today that we are now to have real, decisive action in the form of a resolution, as proposed by the relevant parties, 21 days from the date the meeting was announced last week? Will the Government force the banks to write off the mortgages of the residents? Will the Minister meet them? What is the future of the complex itself? Is the Minister committed to having a suitable resolution, agreed to by all parties, go to the Government three weeks from the relevant date last week?

If we are now at the point of a resolution on this issue, there is only one reason for it, namely the tragic death of Fiachra Daly and the determination and courage of his partner, Stephanie Meehan, in bringing this issue back into the public domain. The reality, both in this Chamber and on the streets, is that Priory Hall residents have been making their call to have these issues resolved for a long time. A year ago in this Chamber, Deputy Wallace, other Deputies and I raised this issue. At the time, we called for all the things we are now calling for again. The development should be demolished. The banks, which are our banks, should be made to pay a price for this and allow people to transfer their mortgages and move on with their lives.

We made the point that the rogue or criminal developer Tom McFeely, who was ultimately responsible for this matter, was able to build correctly in Britain. The reason he built well in Britain was because standards were enforced. If he had not built well, he would have been caught. Here we had the scandal of architects signing off on Priory Hall as fire safe and compliant with the regulations. When extra rooms were built that constituted a fire hazard, the architect in question never bothered examining the development at all. The system failed the residents here. The banks failed them also. All the resolutions we are now being told we are on the verge of achieving were called for by Members of this House and others 100 days after the residents moved out, a year after they moved out, a year ago and so on. What assurance can the Minister give us that the nightmare is finally at an end and that the families can move on and rebuild their lives?

On 24 January 2012, we said in this Chamber: "The predicament of the people who lived in the Priory Hall complex was big news a while back and then it was in the news again but, sadly for them, the nightmare has not gone away". That was 20 months ago, which is frightening. A couple of days before that, I went to Priory Hall and examined some of the apartments. I examined beneath the surface just to see how they were built. I have seen good and bad construction work throughout my life but I was absolutely shocked by what was tolerated at Priory Hall. It was worse than usual. I felt then that, as a builder, I would not actually have liked the challenge of making the work good. It would have been so difficult. I felt then that the development should be torn down. There is little doubt at this stage but if there is to be fairness the residents should have their mortgages wiped. They should be entitled to new mortgages for new properties. The site should be levelled for now. It would not be fair to ask the residents to return to the property. The building cannot be made suitable for living in as ought to be the case.

So many people are culpable. The builder was obviously culpable. The architect and engineer who signed off on it are culpable. The bank sent out valuers to check the buildings to make sure they were worth the money the residents were parting with. They are also culpable and the Government must force them to take responsibility.

I thank the Deputies who have expressed a continuous interest in this matter. I also acknowledge the resilience and strength shown by the former residents of Priory Hall in facing an extremely difficult situation since their homes were evacuated almost two years ago. No homeowner should have to experience what they have lived through in that time.

I wish to set out the context. Following the evacuation of Priory Hall, a resolution process, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Finnegan, a retired President of the High Court, was put in place in the context of legal proceedings which were adjourned to afford relevant parties the opportunity to work together to identify a way forward in dealing with the complex problems at Priory Hall. I was not a party to these legal proceedings and became aware formally this month that, regrettably, the process had not identified a basis on which the parties could agree to bring to a conclusion the various matters at issue at Priory Hall.

Mr. Justice Finnegan reports, through counsel, to the courts, not me. Owing to the legal constraints, I could not intervene until I had heard formally, through Dublin City Council, about the end of that mediation process. However, I did not hesitate once I had been formally notified of the termination and failure of Mr. Justice Finnegan's mediation process and intervened immediately. Some Deputies have argued today that I should have intervened before now, but we have a long record in this House of Ministers driving a coach and four through the courts and legal process. I certainly was not going to do this. I could not do it and completely disagree with Deputy Broughan's advocacy in that regard. I have to take legal advice. I also want to make sure the builders, developers-----

Please allow the Minister to continue without interruption, please.

The Minister is responsible for upholding the law.

Perhaps the Deputy is advocating that the developers, builders and other professionals to whom Deputy Mick Wallace referred should get off the hook.

No, I am not advocating that.

By making the suggestion he made, the Deputy is putting me in that position.

The proceedings in question relate to an appeal by Dublin City Council against an order of the High Court that the council pay the costs of providing alternative accommodation and ancillary expenses faced by the residents consequent on the evacuation of the development. These proceedings are next scheduled to take place before the Supreme Court on 15 October 2013. Dublin City Council has recently guaranteed that it will continue paying the accommodation and ancillary costs, with the help of my Department, of the residents until February 2014.

Irrespective of developments concerning these proceedings, it is imperative to identify fair and equitable solutions for Priory Hall residents and in terms of the future of the complex. The most pressing issue is, undoubtedly, the need to find a solution to the unacceptable position in which the former owner-occupiers find themselves. Earlier this week I announced the Government's planned course of action in this regard. Meetings have already taken place with various parties. Senior officials from my Department have made contact with the relevant stakeholders and good progress is being made. Senior officials from my Department also met the residents of Priory Hall in advance of this process in order to elicit from them their bottom line and their own proposals for resolving these issues.

The full resolution of the Priory Hall issue is the ultimate goal. However, after two years in personally very difficult circumstances which nobody here would want to be in, it is vital that, above all else, the former residents are quickly facilitated, that this process is not dragged out and that people are allowed to get on with their lives. I have set down a short period of 21 days to reach conclusions on the matter which has already taken 15 months of Mr. Justice Finnegan's time through the courts process which ultimately failed. I am urging all parties directly involved to work together constructively towards that end. I assure Deputies Mick Wallace and Clare Daly that all options for the residents and the future of the complex are on the table.

I pay tribute to the courage of Ms Stephanie Meehan and the wider Daly family, as well as that of the other residents of Priory Hall.

What template has the Minister laid down in his Department's dealings with the banks for how this issue may be resolved? He has said officials have listened to residents, but what is he actually saying he wants as a bottom line? Has his Department or the Department of Finance been in touch with other EU financial authorities regarding banks not based in this country?

The only realistic option, as other Deputies have said, is demolition of the Priory Hall complex. Is it the case that €12 million or thereabouts, as mooted by some Ministers, is available for the demolition and rebuilding of the central street at Priory Hall?

The Minister referred to the past and said he was not a party to the proceedings. In that case, why did he not meet the residents? Since he was not a party, he could have met them.

I have asked the Minister umpteen times to have his Department carry out a review, a full investigation or a commission of inquiry in the north fringe under the McDowell legislation. That is what is necessary. All of the professionals who did not do their jobs, as well as the officials, could then be dealt with.

I thank the Minister for his response and outlining the background to this debacle. I raised this issue directly with the Taoiseach on the Order of Business yesterday when he said he would ensure a process would be put in place in order that all public representatives would be kept up to date on what was happening with the banks, Dublin City Council and all other interested parties. That is necessary because there is a lot of anxiety surrounding this issue. I ask the Minister to comment on this and ensure it does actually happen.

There are media reports today to the effect that the residents' financial adviser, Mr. Michael Dowling, has advised that the residents would like to have their mortgages absorbed by the banks and written off. Mr. Dowling has also advised that the residents want their mortgages to be replaced with new ones, with similar financial agreements for a property of their choosing. He has further advised that the former residents do not want to return to the complex, even if it is renovated. I ask the Minister for his thoughts on this. Can he give any indication as to what outcome he would like to see for the residents at the end of this process? Does he believe the banks should write off their mortgages? Should the development be renovated to a very high specification to enable the residents to return in the future or should they be given new mortgages for properties similar to those they originally purchased at Priory Hall?

I thank the Minister for his response on the issues raised and wish to pose a number of questions emanating from it. In the first instance, Mr. Justice Finnegan reported to the courts and subsequently to the Minister, through Dublin City Council. Is it possible for Mr. Justice Finnegan's report to be made public? I ask because I am sure the contents may refer to the culpability to which Deputy Mick Wallace referred, particularly of engineers, valuers and the enforcement section of the council. The Minister has said the Supreme Court case listed for 15 October will solely be concerned with the cost of providing alternative accommodation for those who have been without their own homes for almost two years. The case will deal with that specific issue only and the Minister has said that irrespective of that process and the adjudication by the courts on that matter, he is still seeking a resolution within three weeks, dating from last week when this process was instigated. I ask him to confirm that it is his objective to bring a solution to the Government in two weeks time.

The proceedings involving Dublin City Council with regard to the provision of temporary accommodation had nothing to do with the bigger picture and the Minister's ability to meet the residents and push on this issue. While we are all really hoping the 21 day deadline will yield some results, there is something inherently tragic in this also because, in reality, nothing concrete has changed and nothing the Minister is now doing could not have been done at an earlier date. That lesson must be learned because, sadly, Priory Hall is not an isolated example. Across the road, at the complex in Belmayne, in which many of the Priory Hall residents are now living, there is a similar fire hazard.

It is not up to us to say what the solution is; that is for the residents to decide. They have developed a huge feeling of solidarity with each other and are getting a lot of support from each other. However, the idea of returning to Priory Hall is a nonsense and finding some mechanism, through the banks, is the only viable solution. It is tragic that we were tabling questions on this issue over a year and a half ago and asking about leverage from the banks in getting them to transfer mortgages.

The Minister for Finance told us it could not be done but the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government is now saying it can. I am glad it can be but it should have been done before now.

I believe - I hope the Minister does too - that the primary responsibility of the Government must be to look after those who most need help and the vulnerable. There is little doubt that the Priory Hall residents were very vulnerable. They can be forgiven for feeling that the State has let them down. The local authority has also played a significant role in this matter due to the lack of enforcement of building regulations. The level of enforcement today has not improved. There is nothing wrong with our building regulations. The problem, however, is with the lack of enforcement. I know of developments that have not hit the news yet which are in the hands of the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, but cannot be sold as they are serious fire hazards. There are cases of estates in which people are living where there is no access for a fire engine. The Government will have to set up a template for how it will deal with problems like Priory Hall because there will be more cases emerging and we need to ensure it will not take two and a half years to resolve them.

Deputy Wallace should know better than anyone that I signed building regulations recently that will come into effect early next year. This will ensure all developers, builders and other construction professionals will do what they should have done before now. Before now, a coach and four were driven through existing regulations, some of which were inadequate. I can send the Deputy a copy of the new regulations if he is not aware of their full content. It will be mandatory-----

They are not retrospective, however. The damage has been done. These buildings have been constructed with no regard for regulations.

I am not taking responsibility for the activities of my predecessors. I am trying to ensure this does not happen again. All options to help the residents in this plight-----

Assessors were doing the work of engineers and architects.

I am not taking responsibility for Deputy Cowen’s Government’s activities.

No member of the previous Government was working on the sites in question.

All of the financial institutions involved have been contacted and there is a constructive attitude which I hope will continue. I want to see those builders held to account. While it may take a lot longer than solving the problems of Priory Hall, those involved will not be let off the hook.

After 15 months of mediation there was no solution. That mediation was triggered by the court process, which I have to observe. Others may have the luxury of not heeding legal advice but I do not have that. It is very frustrating for me and for the residents that this has dragged on for so long.

Will the Minister give us a copy of Mr. Justice Finnegan's report?

Mr. Justice Finnegan reports to Dublin City Council and the courts, not to me.

Dublin City Council could give us the report.

It is significant and positive that the relevant financial providers, Dublin City Council, NAMA and other interested parties are prepared to engage. I am giving them a short time to come up with options to provide solutions for Priory Hall owners, both the residents and the buy-to-lets. I have delivered for Priory Hall residents where others have failed. I will not take any lectures from people who have driven a coach and four through building regulations in the past and who have done nothing about modifying those regulations to ensure this does not happen again. The regulations I signed in July 2013 will make a major impact and will make it difficult for unscrupulous developers or construction professionals to repeat the disaster of Priory Hall.

On a point of clarification, will the Minister make available Mr. Justice Finnegan’s report submitted to Dublin City Council?

That is part of the court process, not part of the political process.

Barr
Roinn