Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 1 Jul 2014

Vol. 846 No. 1

Topical Issue Debate

Early Childhood Care Education

I welcome the opportunity to raise this important matter. As we all know, early childhood services in the past were largely informal arrangements between neighbours, families and in some urban areas the option of sending the preschooler to private playschools.

In recent years Government has recognised the need for diverse child-minding arrangements for families, for example, preschool requirements, full-time day care or after-school care. The establishment of the county child care committees was a welcome step in attempting to support parents to obtain quality child care provision in their own area and I acknowledge the excellent work that Offaly County Childcare Committee does.

The early childhood and education care scheme, known as the free preschool year, was widely welcomed on its introduction in 2010. It ensured that all children would have an opportunity to attend preschool free for one year before attending primary school and obtain the recognised benefits of early learning, development and socialisation.

It has brought challenges though in terms of duplication and displacement with too many providers being allowed into the scheme in some areas. Sustainability seems not to have been a priority in the administration of the scheme. Proof of a need for the service should be a priority as some providers are now in the position that they do not have enough children to maintain the service and some are not even earning a wage for themselves as a result. I sincerely hope that the Child and Family Agency will address this issue as a matter of urgency as those already providing the service need to be supported before allowing new providers into the system.

Ensuring that staff are properly trained is essential and the providers, both private and community based, recognise this. Yet it is necessary for providers and staff who require up-to-date first aid or manual-handling training to bear the extra cost of travelling to Dublin to do so. This is the case for those in Offaly. Surely it must be possible to provide this type of training locally to prevent needless travel expenditure for the providers and staff.

Another difficulty being experienced by private providers with vast experience, many of whom have been in existence for 15 or 20 years, is how inspections are conducted. Anecdotally, it appears that there is no consistency. Well run service providers who take their role as child care providers seriously are only too happy to have inspections conducted but being deemed non-compliant because of a stray cobweb or a leaky tap seems to be over the top.

One could not argue against high standards and strict regulations for providers to ensure that our preschool children get the best possible start in life, but what value do we place on their work? Many of those women providing the services are well trained and educated but not paid enough to reflect their experience and responsibilities. I know of child care workers with a degree in early childhood development or child care management who are getting great job satisfaction but are badly paid, many on minimum wage. How long will they remain in such positions? How long before they start to look across the water to do conversion courses to become primary school teachers where they will get work placement and possibly permanent work and at least be properly paid for the work they do? We are investing in training and educating these women but other countries are benefiting. I say women because it is primarily women who are in these roles. We need to recognise that preschool teaching is as valuable as any other teaching position.

One of the biggest challenges for families is the need for after school services.

I was recently contacted by a distraught parent whose after-school provider closed with one day's notice to the parents. Finding a replacement provider is proving difficult and the prices being quoted will return her to the position I was in during the 1980s, that is, being obliged to give up work as child care costs were too high for the household budget to sustain.

A community child care facility in County Offaly also contacted me recently to advise how tight is its cash flow. While I will not mention its name, it has a motivated board that is compliant in every way, fund-raises regularly and is proactive about seeking funding from other sources. However, the board is faced with putting up charges, which it does not wish to do as it is aware the parents cannot afford it. Having obtained funding to improve the building from a particular source, the board now faces the difficulty of being obliged to come up with 25% of the funding for the project or to lose it all. It is a catch-22 for it. Will the Minister consider putting in place interest-free or low-interest loan facilities for such community child care boards to help them expand and improve the services they provide?

I thank my constituency colleague, Deputy Corcoran Kennedy, for raising this important matter. Members will be aware that my Department provides approximately €260 million annually to support the parents of preschool and after-school children with the cost of child care. This funding is provided through approximately 4,300 child care service providers, both community and commercial, throughout the country, enabling them to provide child care supports either free of charge or at reduced rates to qualifying parents. This funding is made available under a number of child care support programmes, all of which are implemented by my Department. These include the early childhood care and education, ECCE, programme, the community child care subvention programme, the child care education and training support programme, and the new after-school child care programme.

The early childhood care and education programme is a universal and free programme to which all children have access and which provides a free preschool year to eligible children in the year before they start primary school. The programme is provided by both community and commercial services and the funding allocated to each service is based on the number of qualifying children and the level of service provided. The standard annual capitation payment in respect of each qualifying child is almost €2,400, with a higher payment made to services where staff hold a higher level of qualification. The programme, which has been in place since 2010, represents an annual investment of €175 million in preschool services. This investment provides a guaranteed source of income to both private and commercial providers and is an important support for many child care services at this time. Approximately 68,000 children avail of the free preschool year annually.

The community child care subvention programme is provided by community not-for-profit child care services. The programme provides targeted funding primarily to support lower income and disadvantaged families. There are more than 900 community not-for-profit child care services throughout the country involved in this programme. The funding provided is used by the participating services to reduce the weekly fees charged to qualifying families and this ensures that many parents, who otherwise would not be in a position to avail of child care services, have access to quality preschool and after-school supports.

Funding is also provided by my Department to support the childhood education and training support programme, which targets funding to support parents seeking to return to the workforce and who are participating in SOLAS or education and training boards education and training programmes. In view of the improving economic situation and the increased opportunities for employment, this is an important employment activation measure that will continue to be supported by this Government. To support further parents seeking employment opportunities, additional measures have been introduced to provide for parents on community employment schemes who need child care support. This programme was introduced earlier this year and there already are almost 400 parents availing of this support.

An important concern for parents who have returned to the workforce is the availability of suitable and affordable after-school care. Last year, my Department and the Department of Social Protection jointly introduced the after-school child care scheme targeted at low-income parents returning to the workforce. The objective is to ensure that affordable and quality child care is available to disadvantaged families when work opportunities are offered. The community employment and after-school support programmes are provided by both community and commercial child care services and the funding provided is used by the services to reduce the weekly fees charged to qualifying parents. To ensure that child care services are fit for purpose and in a position to deliver quality services, a number of capital funding grant programmes have been introduced in recent years.

I am aware of the current difficulties facing the early years sector. I acknowledge what Deputy Corcoran Kennedy has said and am pleased to inform her that despite the adverse economic conditions that have prevailed in recent years, my Department has been able to maintain the level of funding available to the child care sector. This funding supports more than 100,000 children and their parents every year, together with ensuring that many child care services are in a position to continue operating, thereby providing work opportunities for more than 20,000 people throughout the country. I hope to be in a position to invest further in early years services as the financial and economic circumstances of the State permit.

I thank the Minister for his response. While I acknowledge he would wish to have his budget doubled in size, as would I, Members must recognise there is an emerging crisis in some aspects of child care across the many different services which parents and their children need and a review of the situation should be carried out as a matter of urgency. I also understand that a pilot after-school child care scheme similar to ECCE was established last year. Would it be possible to conduct an evaluation on it as soon as possible? Has a decision been made on whether to roll it out across the country at the earliest convenience?

I will communicate with the Deputy in so far as the review she mentioned is taking place. In 2012 and 2013, my predecessor secured capital funding totalling €9 million to support the ongoing improvement of established child care services participating in the child care support programmes as implemented by my Department. A further €2.5 million already has been secured in 2014 for maintenance and upgrade of community or not-for-profit child care services. I believe this is the issue to which the Deputy referred when she mentioned the crisis. I acknowledge there are difficulties, including in the constituency of the Acting Chairman, Deputy Seán Kenny, which he brings to my attention continuously. The aforementioned sum of €2.5 million for maintenance and upgrade of community or not-for-profit child care services will ensure that previously-funded community facilities remain fit for purpose and in a position to continue to deliver the type of quality services our children deserve. Additional capital funding of €5 million has been made available to my Department in the current year under the phase 4 infrastructure stimulus, which is being introduced by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. I currently am considering how this funding can be utilised in the best interests of the sector.

I thank the Deputy for bringing this important matter to my attention. I assure her that her submission and observations in the Chamber will be taken into account fully in the context of any review being undertaken by me or my Department.

Post Office Network

I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber for this debate. As the Minister probably is aware, there is concern about the threat to the post office network nationwide. There is a particular threat in County Galway, where three centres have been the subject of public meetings recently, namely, Barnaderg, Caherlistrane and Cappataggle. I attended two of those meetings, which were well attended, at which the reason An Post moved so quickly to talk about the possibility of closure was raised. In two of the cases, the postmaster had died, as in Barnaderg, Sean Fahy had passed away, while in Cappataggle, the postmistress, Christina Dooley, had died. The consultation notice posted in the village stated clearly that one option would be to close the post office. It also mentioned service provision needs and other criteria that would be considered. However, what I found interesting was that at the public meetings, reference was made to 28 services that are available in the post office. Reference also was made to services that could be available at local post offices and that was the reason I tabled this question. Particular reference was made to matters such as motor tax and driving licences, both for new applications and renewals. This certainly is the subject of much debate in Galway at present, where people are unable to find the driving licence centre. Reference also was made to business customer services, buying dollars and sterling, as well as hospital charges, property tax and other Government payment services.

Post offices were one of the issues considered by the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications when it examined the issues of accessibility and rural isolation. Rural communities will suffer socially and economically if post office closures continue. Disadvantaged urban areas will also be affected. Rural isolation describes the reduced services and opportunities available in areas with a low population density. Cappataggle is located halfway between Ballinasloe and Loughrea and the loss of its post office will require local people to travel much more. It is interesting that rural transport is often discussed in the context of mobility and accessibility to services. The post office is of particular importance in rural communities, notably among older people, as a number of commentators and organisations, including Age Action, have noted.

I note media reports indicating that An Post has threatened to terminate the contracts of postmasters for providing services outside their remit. Newsagents regard it as unfair to be described as postmasters running other businesses on their premises. The Irish Independent has seen a copy of a letter from An Post in which it promotes a new service, PostPack. I understand the letter detailing ways in which customers can avoid visiting a post office was received by 3,000 shop owners who operate the post point outlets. Instead of encouraging people to avoid using their local post offices, the company should offer people every incentive to continue to do business in post offices. New business could be done in rural post offices, which also provide an important social outlet.

I thank Deputy Kitt for raising this important issue. I assure him that the Government is committed to a strong and viable An Post and supports the maintenance of the maximum number of economically viable post offices providing high quality services on a nationwide basis.

The commercial operation of An Post's post office network is a matter for the board and management of the company. In much of rural Ireland, commercial business is moving away from smaller towns towards larger urban centres. This is marginalising the rural economy, drawing employment away from the countryside and reducing economic services, including banking and retail services, outside regional centres. In urban areas, increased broadband penetration, reduced mail volumes and the availability of alternative payment services is reducing post office business. The post office network needs to place itself to rise to these challenges over the medium term.

In the face of these changes, earlier this year I committed to taking the issue of the provision of additional public sector business to the Cabinet committee on social policy. The committee had its initial consideration of the paper I put to it at its meeting on 28 April and agreed to my proposal for a whole-of-Government review of the scope for locating additional public services in post offices. The review is being undertaken with the aim of a final report, based on the responses made by Departments being made to the Cabinet committee in September. While it is not possible at this stage to pre-empt the outcome of the report, all potential avenues for new public sector business opportunities will be fully explored by my Department. Where new business is identified, the caveat of compliance with public procurement requirements will need to be respected.

It is acknowledged that the migration from cash to electronic payments by the Department of Social Protection is one that will have a significant impact on the post office network. However, having invested in the computerisation of all post offices, the network is well positioned to handle the change and become the front office provider of choice for government and financial services and is ideally configured for over-the-counter transactions. Any such developments would need to be subject to competition and public procurement requirements, as appropriate.

Progress towards diversification within the financial services sector is under way, with the enhanced arrangement with AIB and the agreement with Aviva for the transfer of their branch offices personal insurance business to One Direct.

On the issue raised by the Deputy regarding a review of direct debit services at post offices, a number of aspects need to be taken into account. First, it is a matter for An Post and the contracting party for a service to decide what payment channels are made available to customers. These can range from cash transactions to electronic transactions. Second, the availability of choice is something which customers seek as it gives them greater options for conducting their monetary transactional business. Expansion rather than limitation of choice is a common feature of customer service today.

I understand the concern of the Deputy about the future of the post office network. An Post faces many challenges not only financial in nature, but also from the development of communications technologies. Any decisions it may take must be considered in the context of maintaining a sustainable post office network. As shareholder, I have a strong concern regarding the ongoing commercial position of the company and regularly liaise with it in this regard. I acknowledge the pivotal role post offices play in local communities in both financial and social terms.

An Post has many strengths and the largest retail presence in the country. Ireland has one of the most extensive post office networks per head of population in the 28 member states of the European Union. I have impressed on the company the need to further exploit its unique position in this regard and have been supportive of its attempts to diversify its income streams and win a wider range of commercial contracts offering higher margins.

I envisage a strong future for the post office network by using its existing strengths to remain a significant player in the provision of government, financial and other services. Securing the future viability of the post office network in the longer term will entail the network continuing to modernise to provide the services that its customers require. It has been long-standing policy that An Post remains in a position to compete in a liberalised market and continue to provide wide-ranging services to urban and rural communities.

I thank the Minister for his response. It is good to have an opportunity to discuss this issue in the Chamber as Deputies may not table parliamentary questions on individual post offices. I have listened to the views of people attending public meetings in the west, a region the Minister knows well. People are tired of An Post's argument that it is not its policy to close down post offices and want instead to hear that it is the company's policy to keep post offices open.

The Minister addressed the issue of direct debits and alternative means of making payments. This issue needs to be reviewed and I hope the Minister will do so. I wrote to him recently indicating that a constituent of mine who tried to pay an ESB at her local post office, as her late mother had done for many years, was treated as a new customer and asked to pay a deposit of €300 if she wished to pay directly at the post office. Those who pay by direct debit, however, do not incur an additional charge. This type of approach suggests An Post would be pleased if people avoided visiting post offices in person. I brought this matter to the attention of the Commission for Communications Regulation on 5 June and have not yet received a reply, although I understand the commission is considering the issue. There is, however, no reason to change existing arrangements, for example, it should be possible to transfer an ESB bill from a mother to her daughter. I ask the Minister to examine this issue.

New uses and types of business must be considered for post offices.

I am confident that, if given the opportunity, post offices will develop new business and will be a viable alternative, particularly for those in rural areas.

I am entirely in agreement with Deputy Kitt about the affection with which the post office network is regarded, especially by small communities in provincial areas.

The problem for An Post is that it is a commercial State company, the core business of which has been diminishing at a fairly serious rate because traditional letter-writing has been replaced by electronic substitution and it and the postal network has had to develop and market new services. That is what it has been doing and, hopefully, we can accelerate that. It did win the social welfare contract. It is important to say that amidst all of the discussions and public meetings to which Deputy Kitt referred.

I take issue with one remark of Deputy Kitt when he stated that, as far as he can see, An Post would like to avoid customers going to the post office. That is not fair. Deputy Kitt is correct about An Post believing that more of its services will have to go online. The fact of the matter is that it is not merely an efficiency measure for An Post. A lot of customers want to be able to transact their business online. Customers who do not want that option or those who do not have basic digital literacy are entitled to do their business over the counter in the traditional way.

As I stated in the House previously, between 2006 and 2010 some 197 post offices closed, but since 2010 only 17 have closed. I visited the most unusual post office on Thursday last on Arranmore Island which, I am happy to say, is thriving, and I would not throw in the towel on Cappataggle, known for its production of hurlers, in south Galway. Caherlistrane, I must admit, I did not know about.

The Minister must conclude.

I was merely going for a wander down memory lane.

The Minister knows the post offices.

The Minister should not go too far down that lane.

The Minister might as well mention Barnaderg now; I did not.

I understand the concern of the residents of Barnaderg and elsewhere, but I point out again that it is only in the exceptional case that An Post has gone ahead and closed post offices in the past three years.

Road Improvement Schemes

The Minister, Deputy Varadkar, was in Cobh recently at the Irish Open and he visited Fota Wildlife Park where he opened a tropical house and animal care centre. In his speech, the Minister highlighted the fantastic facilities, the fantastic coastline and that Cobh attracts large cruise liners, and he applauded the considerable investment into Cork Harbour, all of which is true. I supported every word the Minister stated. However, there is one missing link.

The R624 and Slatty Bridge into Cobh are in serious need of upgrading. This is an issue that has been ongoing for years but the situation has been deteriorating. Reduced funding being made available by the Government under the strategic regional and local roads programme has meant no funding has been released.

This upgrading is an essential piece of infrastructure. Not only is it a life line for residents, but it is also essential for business and for an area heavily reliant on tourism. The upgrading, at an estimated cost of €60 million, would provide a jobs boost to our local economy and provide an essential piece of infrastructure for future investment. Proper roads and transport facilities are important factors that attract investment.

Earlier this year, not for the first time, there was flooding in the Cobh area. Cobh itself was cut off, also not for the first time. The main road was impassable and the ferry was unable to dock. Emergency services were not able to access the residents of Cobh. That poses a serious threat to health and safety for the people of Cobh but it also sends out the wrong message to any potential investor. If one invests in Cobh, there is no guarantee that one can move one's goods or products in or out of Cobh. One's success is weather dependent. One's best ally is not the Government, but the weather man. The Government applauds itself as pro-business and pro-enterprise, but does that not count if one lives or works in Cobh?

Will the Minister prioritise funding so that this essential infrastructure can be built?

I thank Deputy McLellan for the opportunity to address this issue. The improvement and maintenance of regional and local roads in its area is a statutory function of each road authority, in this case Cork County Council, in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Roads Act 1993. Works on such roads are a matter for the relevant local authority to be funded from its own resources supplemented by State road grants.

The 2014 regional and local road grant allocations were announced in January this year. A total of €331.9 million is being provided to local authorities in 2014 for regional and local roads grants. The initial selection and prioritisation of projects to be funded from these moneys is a matter for each local authority.

The cutbacks in State grants for regional and local roads has meant that it has been necessary to concentrate resources on the maintenance and rehabilitation of road pavements, rather than major new road schemes and major realignment schemes.

I am familiar with the R624 Cobh Road project and I understand there is a lot of concern locally about the need to upgrade access to Cobh island, as Deputy McLellan explained. An application was received from Cork County Council in September 2010 for 100% funding of the R624 Cobh Road project, which involves the construction of a new road and bridge at an estimated cost of €57.5 million under the strategic regional and local roads programme.

The funding available for projects under this category for the entire country in 2014 is €11.3 million, down from €87.5 million in 2008. Unfortunately, this means that it is not possible to progress projects such as this at present anywhere in the State.

The Government's comprehensive review of expenditure 2015-2017 and capital review 2015-2019 have commenced. The current and capital reviews will consider new ways of achieving Government objectives in the tight fiscal framework in which we operate, including the extent to which funding will be available for the maintenance and development of the road network. I cannot say at this point what the outcome of the comprehensive review and of the capital review will be, but the Deputy can be assured that I will be making a strong case for an increase in the roads budget so that important projects such as this can be put back on the agenda. I would also encourage Cork County Council in any future application to make a contribution to the cost of such a project from its own revenues.

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am glad he stated that in the future he will make a strong case for the improvement of the Cobh Road.

The State has a clear role to play in job creation, investment and enterprise. Part of that role is to identify where there are weaknesses and strengths, and it is up to the Minister to strengthen any weakness and to assist in the flow of investment and jobs in to a suitable area that requires it. That area, I argue, is Cobh.

The Minister himself was there and he spoke highly of it.

I believe the Minister when he says he will make a strong case for it.

Cobh is a beautiful town which relies heavily on tourism. It is ideally situated in Cork Harbour - the second largest natural harbour in the world - and attracts large cruise ships. Cobh is at the doorstep of Cork, the second largest city on the island. It is also close to markets and is a gateway to the nation.

I know that €60 million may sound like a lot in the overall scheme of things, but this issue has been continuing for decades. We need to get that one missing link which is the upgrade of the Cobh road. I hope the Minister will see it as an investment rather than as expenditure. I also hope that in future he will make any case he can to prioritise the upgrading of the road.

In fairness, neither of us is here to score political points. We both appreciate what Cobh and the surrounding areas have to offer in terms of tourism and future investment possibilities. We agree that we would like to see the bridge and road being improved in the coming years. It is frankly a matter of money. The roads budget has been cut back severely, largely in order to protect front-line public services and reduce the amount of new taxes that have to be imposed. Therefore, it has been cut back for good reasons. However, I will be seeking an increase in the budget in the next round of multi-annual funding so that projects like this one can continue again.

The money we have left is largely for care and maintenance. The only new projects going ahead are either relatively inexpensive or funded off balance-sheet through public private partnerships. This is not the kind of project, however, that can be done as a PPP.

I note from Sinn Féin's pre-budget submission that it has not provided any increase in funding for transport or roads either. I imagine therefore that Sinn Féin would be supportive of the Government's overall thinking, which is that unfortunately, transport projects such as this will have wait in order to avoid imposing further cuts on front-line public services, or further taxes or charges.

Local Authority Funding

As the Minister of State is aware, next year local authorities will receive 80% of the local property tax raised in their area, most of which will be raised in Dublin. It is estimated that Dublin City Council will receive about €60 million from a yield of €80 million from property tax in the city area alone. That is ten times more than will be paid in Louth, where approximately €8 million will be paid in property tax. Dublin will get €2.6 million from the Local Government Fund, while Louth will get €8 million. This can hardly be considered as fair.

Of the €80 million to be raised, some €60 million of the Dublin City Council home owners' tax will subsidise local authorities that do not raise enough in their own areas. I have no problem with a centralised fund and an equalisation mechanism, as long as all counties are treated similarly, equally and fairly. To date, however, the four Dublin local authorities have not been treated thus. There has been great discrimination against the four Dublin local authority areas.

There has been much media speculation that grants paid to councils, and especially the four city authorities, will be slashed. Given the fact that we will pay so much property tax, an amount of money will be kept within those authorities. The Government will then slash local grants, taking with one hand and giving nothing back. Approximately €52 million is paid from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to Dublin City Council alone, not to mention the three other Dublin local authorities. That pays for house building programmes, adaptation grants and homelessness subsidies. In the middle of a housing crisis we cannot reduce any money to the homeless sector or for house building within the Dublin area.

If the Minister of State is still in that position next week or if he is elevated to a more senior position-----

-----I expect him to ensure that Dublin gets its fair share, which is has not up to now.

We are in the midst of a housing crisis and it would be lunacy to continue this discrimination. Dublin is at the heart of it. I expect a high standard from the Minister of State, who should defend Dublin and ensure the city gets its fair share.

I am concerned by reports that central funding to local authorities in the Dublin area could be reduced. This is particularly worrying as we are currently in the teeth of a housing crisis in which individuals and families are being thrust into homelessness daily. Currently, local authorities in Dublin, including my own area of Fingal, need increased funding to tackle this crisis. The crisis is significantly a Dublin problem although some rural areas are also affected.

Insufficient funding is available for essential urgent housing adaptation based on assessed medical needs. Any reduction in central funding would equate to Dubliners being punished for paying property tax. My own area of Fingal contributed €18.4 million in local property tax last year and had the second highest compliance rate of any local authority in the country last year, with 94.6% of households paying the charge. This high compliance rate is partly due to the recognition by people that their local services are under financial strain and require further funding. It should not result in reduced central funding.

Fingal and the other Dublin councils already receive much lower per capita funding from central government than other councils around the country. Fingal council, and especially its newly constituted operations department, is working hard to do more with less. It is trying to get more open spaces maintained with fewer personnel, as well as constructing paths and fixing potholes to improve roads and pedestrian safety.

The money taken in by the local property tax is not a bonanza, as is being reported in some parts of the media. It is money that should go to people on housing adaptation lists, to get stalled community centre projects off the ground, and to invest in tackling the housing and homelessness crisis. This money will not cure all the challenges facing local government - far from it. It will only moderately relieve the strain placed on local authorities.

The Deputy will have to conclude now.

It is vital that central government does not give with one hand while taking away with the other.

I have to beat the same drum as my colleagues, and particularly Deputy Ryan, because like him I represent a developing county. That means we have much greater need of financial input into local authorities. I represent a county that has consistently received the least per capita share from the Local Government Fund. I think €500,000 was the figure for last year. Dubliners are paying much more local property tax than people in rural areas. I appreciate, however, that the figures for County Kildare and the Minister of State's area of County Louth would be a bit higher than other rural areas.

The fact that we in Dublin are paying so much more in property tax should not lead to a discriminatory situation whereby we lose out on grants. As my colleagues have said, we urgently need money, particularly for housing and to combat homelessness. In my own county, 50 people are waiting for emergency accommodation. Most of them are living in hotels, so we cannot afford to lose out on central government grants. I therefore urge the Minister of State to look after our needs in that regard and not punish us because our people are paying more in property tax than others. There are other ways to address disparities in collecting local property tax, which could be considered if that path is to be examined.

During the bubble period, when the State was overly reliant on stamp duty and VAT as a source of income, people in Dublin and the commuter belt contributed disproportionately to the coffers of the State. It would be extremely unfair if they emerge from that situation to a new one in which they are doubly punished because of property prices in Dublin and the local property charge.

Council services benefit the most vulnerable and poorest in our society, whether through housing, sheltered accommodation, libraries, parks or playgrounds. All of the essential services that councils provide benefit the poorest and most vulnerable, who have the greatest need for public services. The suggestion that central government grants to Dublin City Council or any of the other Dublin councils could be affected because of receipts from the local property tax is patently unfair. Given the historical context of what happened during the bubble period, the bankrupt nature of the funding mechanism and the fact that Dubliners were unfairly treated during that period, to disadvantage those living in the Dublin region by cutting central government funds is doubly unfair. Dublin has a higher proportion of marginalised and disadvantaged communities who depend on council services for their very survival. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, to ensure they are not cut off from central government.

I thank the Deputies for raising this important matter which I am taking on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government.

In recent months there has been extensive discussion of the issue of local property tax, LPT, and how local retention of that tax might impact on local authorities in the future. It is a complex issue that will need much consideration as the Estimates process for 2015 progresses. The Departments of Public Expenditure and Reform, Finance, Transport, Tourism and Sport and the Environment, Community and Local Government have been examining the implications of local retention and variation of local property tax in recent months. They have considered a wide range of issues, including the implications of 80% local retention of LPT, the new power that local authorities have, with effect from today, to vary the basic rate of LPT by up to 15% and how those policies might potentially impact on the overall Exchequer financial position and the financial positions of individual local authorities.

For local authorities, 2014 and 2015 will be particularly challenging years given that they are undergoing the most fundamental structural changes since the foundation of the State, as well as a significant restructuring in respect of water services and completely changed funding and service delivery models. These changes to the local government funding model will need to be carefully managed. The Departments concerned are actively considering the issues arising from these changes and, following consideration by the Government, local authorities will be advised of the outcome.

In terms of local retention of local property tax, the Government has indicated its intention to move to 80% retention of the tax from 2015. A decision to allow local authorities to retain 80% of LPT locally and the power to vary LPT rates will facilitate further implementation of the local government reform programme, a core element of which involves greater devolution to the local government sector through supporting enhanced local decision-making on spending priorities.

The Minister fully recognises that it is necessary for Government to provide funding certainty for local authorities as early as possible if they are to be able to meet their budgetary obligations and consider the question of whether to vary LPT for 2015 by the end of September 2014. There is a need to recognise that the LPT base outside of the cities and main commuter zones is narrower and there will be a requirement to equalise the income position of those local authorities to ensure an acceptable standard of service delivery is maintained throughout the country. The issue of LPT allocations, both from local retention rates and from any subsequent income provided to local authorities to equalise distribution across the State are matters for the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. The Minister considers that is essential to resolve them at the earliest opportunity and he will continue to work with Government colleagues to ensure that information in respect of these decisions is available to local authorities to facilitate their budgetary timeframe.

The provision of other central government grants to local authorities will be considered, as normal, as part of the Estimates process. The Minister and Ministers of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government will engage with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform in this regard, particularly in respect of funding for housing matters, which is currently a significant source of funding for local authorities from central government. The matter of overall housing grant allocations for 2015 is, of course, inextricably linked with the new social housing strategy which is currently being developed by the Minister of State with responsibility for housing and planning, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, and which is expected to be finalised by the end of September. The level of central government grant funding to be provided to local authorities from other Departments is a matter for those Departments and for the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

The Minister of State indicated this is a complex issue but I will put it in simple terms. Do not try to rip off Dublin.

I have no intention of doing so.

This is not a debate; I am replying to the Minister of State. Do not try to rip off Dublin. Since 2013, home values in the Dublin area have nearly doubled. This is another problem that needs to be addressed. The shortage of housing in the Dublin area has driven prices up. Dublin residents and householders cannot be punished for this. Local councillors need to be given the power to vary the local property tax by 15% or else the rates should be frozen at 2013 valuations until the market settles. I ask for those issues to be considered and addressed. I will be watching carefully because the Minister of State will probably be promoted, and I will be saying the same thing to my own party colleagues. I will not stand for Dublin being ripped off. Let us be clear on that.

I will not either.

We need to increase our supports for local government to help it meet the challenges our citizens face every day, from run of the mill problems to the extraordinary challenge of not having a stable roof over one's head. We need to invest rather than reduce. We have a crisis of housing and our local authorities are on the front line. Any diminution in funding through central grants will weaken our chances of beating that crisis, and Dublin councils must not be treated less favourably than other councils.

We will be in a very rebellious state if we do not make progress on this issue.

Roll on that rebellion.

It is unacceptable for Dublin to be discriminated against. I agree with Deputy Kevin Humphreys in regard to future property taxes in Dublin in the context of changing house prices. This raises the question of how property tax is calculated. There are ways of making a fairer calculation across the country. Being from the county that has always gotten the least from the Local Government Fund, I will be watching developments closely to ensure we are not deprived of funding, particularly in regard to the housing crisis.

Last year, Dublin City Council scraped its budget through and last minute proposals from city management in regard to cutting homelessness services and adaptation grants for the disabled and potential increases of 14% in local authority rents were avoided because of an intervention from the Government. Without ongoing and sustainable intervention by the Government, the services that protect the most vulnerable in Dublin will not survive. This is a matter of equality and social solidarity.

It is important to underpin the essential services of housing, community infrastructure, library services, etc., with sustainable funding. This should come from the local property tax, which I support, and also from the central government to ensure such services can continue in future without a threat hanging over them from year to year.

I assure Deputy Kevin Humphreys in particular that this Government is not ripping off the people of Dublin and it has no intention of doing so.

I will hold the Minister of State to that.

The Minister of State is contradicting everybody.

There should be no interruption.

The facts are simple. I have clearly stated, and I repeat, that regardless of where people live, 80% of the funding will be spent where it is raised. That is the Deputies' Government and mine, their Ministers and mine, which are committed to this goal. We are also committed to the financial certainty that we all want, whether it is in Dublin, Drogheda, Cork, Kerry, Limerick or Tipperary. We must run a country and we must ensure that can be done fairly, with all our communities getting the funding to which they are entitled and a fair proportion of what is paid.

The housing issue is significant in Dublin and the Minister of State with responsibility for housing, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, who is a member of Labour, has very strongly put forward all the proposals which should be supported by all of us to improve housing, particularly in Dublin. Funding must be used to put back into living use the houses which are boarded up around the city and country in order to meet those needs. One of the biggest issues for Dublin is its water supply and we must spend €500 million over the next three or four years to ensure Dublin has the water supply it deserves and to which it is entitled.

That is the concern of Irish Water.

We are not ripping off anybody but ensuring that there is fair and equitable distribution of funding. Everybody will get 80% of what they pay in and the balance will go to some counties or areas which do not have the funding to maintain basic services. The Minister, Deputy Hogan, is firmly of the view that certainty is important in this significant time, and he will continue to work with Government colleagues to ensure the necessary budgetary information is available. Grant allocations from central government are a matter for the Estimates and the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, along with other Ministers, will continue to engage with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, in this regard.

All of us agree that 80% of the funding should be spent where it is raised and there should be fairness and equity across the country. I hope the needs of Dublin will be met from the funding, as it should be.

Barr
Roinn