Vol. 882 No. 1
1. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the progress made to date with the roll-out of the Leader programme for 2014 to 2020; when it is expected that all of the contracts will be in place and the programme will be operational; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22592/15]
The question very simple. It seeks to get some idea as to when the roll-out of the Leader programme will happen and when it is expected to be operational throughout the State from the north to the south and from the east to the west. I hope the Minister can clarify when this will happen and when we can expect the money to flow.
The Leader element of the Rural Development Programme 2014–2020 will provide €250 million in financial resources to support the development of sustainable rural communities. Under stage one of the selection process for the new programme, any entity wishing to be considered as a local action group was invited to submit an expression of interest. For the purpose of the new programme, there are 28 sub-regional areas in Ireland, and 45 separate expressions of interest were received. A single expression of interest has been received in 19 of the 28 areas and at least two expressions of interest have been received in the remaining nine areas. In areas where multiple expressions of interest were received, my Department has given an undertaking to facilitate discussions between the relevant entities with a view to engaging all parties and, if possible, reaching an agreement to develop one coherent local development strategy for their area. In this regard, my Department commenced meetings last week with a range of entities, and these will continue over the coming period.
In the meantime, I expect that all of the expressions of interest will be presented to an independent evaluation committee for assessment and decision by late June. On foot of this, preparatory support will be made available to all eligible local action groups selected by the committee. The groups will then be provided with a minimum of six months to develop their strategies, but I expect some strategies to be submitted earlier than this.
The independent evaluation committee will also assess and make the final decisions with regard to the quality of the local development strategies. In areas where a single strategy is submitted, the committee in question will review and evaluate these strategies with a view to ensuring that the strategies meet the required standard. In areas where entities do not come to an agreement and multiple strategies are submitted, it will be a matter for the evaluation committee to a make a decision on which local development strategy best meets the needs of the community. Notwithstanding this, I anticipate that the new programme will be operational in some areas by autumn 2015 and hopefully in all communities by early 2016.
I thank the Minister for providing quite an amount of useful information. The Minister of State mentioned a minimum of six months, but I accept that there is a maximum of six months to get the plan in. From the end of June, a maximum of six months gives one up to end of January, after which the applications have to be evaluated and the contracts agreed. As the Minister of State is aware, there are always delays, questions and issues; it is part of the job. Will she accept that it is optimistic to suggest that any of the Leader programmes will be rolled out before the end of 2015, given that there are only five months from the end of this month? In respect of areas where there is more than one expression of interest, when does the Minister of State think, in reality, she will have signed contracts and will be in a position to accept applications for Leader funding? When will the programme be up and running as far as the community is concerned, allowing for the time taken to carry out evaluations, agree contracts and go through the small print and clauses?
As the Deputy mentioned, there will be a maximum of six months to develop the strategy. From speaking with the people in this space, the development companies and the local community development committee, LCDC, structures, I know they are working hard on getting their strategy together. I do not envisage any delay in the process. Everyone is working hard to draw down this money and get it into the communities. That is not only the priority for me but it is also the priority of the people on the LCDCs and Leader companies. The Department is doing everything it can to facilitate the process. I do not expect any particular delay. The process this time around is different from the process on the last occasion. Once the local development strategy is decided on, that is the trigger for the drawing down of moneys, so I do not expect any delays.
Will the Minister of State confirm that once the strategy is submitted, for which I understand there are significant requirements, there will be a requirement for an evaluation and that issues may arise in regard to the strategy that may need clarification? Once the evaluation has been agreed and the strategy has been agreed, contractual arrangements will have to be entered into with the companies. As I correct in saying that it is only when the contractual arrangements are agreed with the companies and the contract is signed that the companies can actually start accepting applications for Leader funding?
I accept what the Deputy is saying.
I do not have a crystal ball so I cannot say exactly what will happen in the future, but I try to deal with the problem when it arises. We are going through a process and we should allow this process to take place. If it does throw up any difficulties, we will deal with them.
2. Deputy Brian Stanley asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the terms of reference for the inquiry into planning matters in County Donegal which he has established and if such an inquiry will be in a position to question current and former members of Donegal County Council. [22067/15]
My question concerns the terms of reference of the inquiry into planning matters into Donegal. Will the inquiry be in a position to question current and former members and current and former staff of Donegal County Council?
On 14 June 2013, the High Court made an order quashing that part of my Department's planning review report of 2012 relating to Donegal following a settlement between my Department and the party concerned who had brought judicial review proceedings in respect of that part of the report. The matter has been disposed of to the satisfaction of both sides. In light of these proceedings, my Department subsequently sought the advice of the Attorney General on how best to proceed in the case of issues raised relating to planning matters in Donegal.
I have now considered what next steps need to be taken in this regard, taking account of advice from the Office of the Attorney General. In that context, my Department is finalising arrangements for the imminent appointment on a non-statutory basis of a senior counsel nominated by the Attorney General to prepare a report relating to the matters concerned. This report will be prepared in line with terms of reference which have been agreed in consultation with the Attorney General's office.
The arrangements involved in the preparation of the report will be announced in due course. It will be a matter for the appointed senior counsel to determine how best to undertake the preparation of the report relating to these matters, including engagement with any relevant persons. I would expect that the same person will engage with all relevant parties in order to deal with this issue in a satisfactory way.
The Minister said he was about to appoint a senior counsel to examine the irregularities complained about in Donegal and that this would be done on a non-statutory basis. The consultants examining the other six counties under scrutiny were appointed on a statutory basis, so why is this being done on a non-statutory basis? The Minister said he was in discussions with the Attorney General about the terms of reference, that the senior counsel would put those together and that they would be published, but the terms of reference for the senior counsel heading this up are of the utmost importance. There could be very different outcomes depending on the terms of reference and the areas that are looked at. Can the Minister also tell us what authority the senior counsel will have to call and question former officials and relevant persons who are the subject of complaints and who have now finished their employment with Donegal County Council?
I have no reason to believe that the senior counsel will not get the full co-operation of everyone. I am satisfied that proceeding on a non-statutory basis is probably the most efficient and quickest way of dealing with this. I note that there was full co-operation relating to the previous review, even though this report was then the subject of High Court proceedings. In the unlikely event that there is some issue with co-operation, I have no issue reconsidering it and putting it on a statutory basis, but I want to get this done as quickly as possible so we can get to the bottom of the issues once and for all.
My Department is currently engaging with senior counsel nominated by the Attorney General. Obviously there is a lot of preparatory work to be done, and a fee proposal relating to the work is imminent. Subject to agreement on that, we will be in a position to announce the person who will carry out the review.
I thank the Minister for that reply, but I must say that people who are no longer in the employment of the council may not feel as compelled to co-operate with any inquiry. Any investigation that does not question these individuals would not be of much use.
A number of serious allegations have been made by a former planner, Gerard Convie. A total of 20 cases have been sent to the Department. Will the inquiry investigate those cases? Serious allegations are also being made in respect of the Greystones area in Wicklow. Will there be any investigation into them?
We were promised that the office of the planning regulator would be established, as recommended by the Mahon tribunal. When are we likely to see this?
The legislation for the office of the planning regulator will be coming through in the autumn. Subsequent to the passing of that legislation, the office will be put in place, which is something I presume the Deputy welcomes.
The case of Wicklow is under thorough consideration by my Department and I expect to be able to make some comments on that in the very near future. The Deputy knows that I cannot go into the allegations to which he referred, but the process we are putting in place will ensure that it is dealt with as efficiently and quickly as possible. As the Deputy is aware, it has been going on for some time. I believe that what we have put in place is the best way of dealing with it. Of course, we will constantly review it, but we are expecting full co-operation from all those involved. My Department has already written to the chief executive of Donegal County Council advising him of the appointment of a senior counsel. As soon as the contract is signed and the senior counsel is in place, we will ensure everybody is written to as part of this process.
3. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government if he will reconvene the homelessness forum, given the fact that ever more families are finding it impossible to source even emergency accommodation and the fact that Government policy is exacerbating this trend; if he is aware that the situation in County Kildare, County Meath and County Wicklow is rapidly deteriorating; his plans to address this crisis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22634/15]
We are moving away from the rent allowance model for private rented accommodation for people on the housing list, and the housing assistance payment, HAP, and long leasing are being used by the vast majority of people. The problem is that individuals must source the accommodation and it is very precarious in the absence of a change in the environment at local government level.
Addressing the current challenges relating to homelessness is a top priority for me and my Department. I will not say there is any silver bullet or that it is easy, but we are trying every combination we can. It is not about funding. It really is about trying to ensure we can put in place all the strategies that will work. I have put in place a special task force to oversee the work of an interdisciplinary unit to source additional accommodation for homeless families. The task force meets weekly under the guidance of the Minister of State, Deputy Coffey, and myself. My Department is in regular contact with other Departments, State agencies, local authorities and a range of stakeholders from the NGO sector relating to homelessness issues. This issue is dealt with on a daily and weekly basis in my Department and is constantly being monitored. Formal arrangements in place include the joint forum of the cross-Department team on homelessness and the national homelessness consultative committee, which met on 4 June, and the high-level homelessness policy implementation team, which last met on 15 May. This issue is also raised very regularly at meetings of the Cabinet sub-committee on social policy chaired by An Taoiseach. The level of engagement is very high.
The number of families presenting to local authorities as homeless has increased. I accept that rising rents are a major issue and we must address the issue of supply. I have already announced a suite of measures, of which the Deputy is well aware, to increase the supply of social housing. I have also established a suite of measures to help people who are vulnerable to becoming homeless. We are monitoring this constantly. We are also trying to roll out other protocols relating to intercepting people who are vulnerable.
These protocols have worked well in Dublin and have been rolled out in Cork and we are looking at rolling them out. In some cases they are managed by Threshold but it need not always be the one agency. Anyway, those protocols have worked well.
Deputy Catherine Murphy raised a query as regards the local authorities and a change in mindset. I would be interested to hear more detail on what the Deputy is offering on the matter. Certainly I can assure her that we are constantly on to the local authorities as regards dealing with this issue, providing extra funding and providing a considerable number of extra staff as well.
The short term is the real problem. The Minister is right about rising rents and said he is dealing with this every day but I am dealing with this every day as well and from what I can see, it is not working. There is a county boundary which delineates my area from the Dublin area. The tenancy protection environment in the Dublin area is very different from what we experience. I see vulnerable groups finding it impossible to secure accommodation. I see families being broken up and cases where one person in a family is sleeping in the car while the children are being farmed out and do not get to school. Real damage is being done. If we are moving to a different model, we cannot have a situation where people have the entire responsibility to source the accommodation themselves, because some people will simply find it impossible.
We find that people are being moved away from resources, for example, children with special needs. When they have to move, very often the resources cannot move with them. What I am seeing in my area is pure chaos. There is an urgency about this issue and about extending what is available in Dublin to other areas.
We have made a number of changes. We have put substantial amounts of funding into it and I hope the Deputy acknowledges that. There is no silver bullet as regards the necessity to provide extra supply. The funding is in place up to 2020 and it is a substantial amount. We have works programmes with the local authorities for social housing. That work is ongoing, as everyone is aware. However, there is a time lag.
The Deputy referred to the commuter areas. I agree that there are specific pressures there which need to be addressed in a different way, and we are looking at addressing them. We have changed protocols as regards the volume of accommodation provided and prioritised for people who are vulnerable and homeless. This is something we review on a monthly basis. We are looking at extending the intervention mechanism to which I referred earlier to commuter areas because of the fact the pressures in many of the commuter areas, in particular, in Kildare, Meath and Wicklow, are similar to the issues faced by many people in Dublin. This is something we are addressing through the local authorities as well. There is an increase in the prioritisation of funding as regards how we can turn around stock quickly in the case of voids and in other areas.
I acknowledge resources are being provided but much of that is medium-term. If someone arrives at my office tomorrow morning, I cannot say to him or her there is no silver bullet. He or she will want a solution tomorrow if facing homelessness on Monday, and often that is the case. Not a day goes by that I do not have people in my office with these problems. This has been the case now for a year or more.
One of the problems is the definition of homelessness. In many cases, local authorities take it to be what was deemed as traditional homelessness - I hate to use that term. Anyway, a mindset change is needed because there is a different housing model. People are not being listed as homeless or at risk of homelessness in some local authorities because of that definition. There needs to be a change in the culture, arrangements and rights to ensure that people have a right to shelter. I am not suggesting that they should have fantastic houses in the locations they want necessarily, but the basic point is that they have a right to shelter. A change in mindset and institutional change is needed.
I will offer two observations, or comments. I deal with this as a Deputy rather than as a Minister as well. The priority is to keep people in their homes and to put in place as many intervention mechanisms as possible to do that. We are continuously rolling those out. We have 80 directions in respect of homelessness and trying to keep people in their homes. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Some of the tactics - for want of a better phrase - work in some areas and do not in others. It is my desire to extend the protocols to which I referred.
The issue raised by Deputy Catherine Murphy on the mindset of local authority staff and management on this issue would be a concern of mine if I believed it to be widespread across local authorities, but I do not detect that. On the basis of what Deputy Murphy has said, I will re-emphasise this. There is a differentiation between what many people see as homelessness, that is, those who are, unfortunately, sleeping on the streets, etc. and the new homeless, including families, etc. A differentiation applies. Obviously, we have dealt fairly quickly with many of the issues with the rough sleepers, but the prioritisation, without a shadow of a doubt, now relates to vulnerable families and people like that. The idea is to try to have the protocols in place to intercept them. That is the priority and that is what we are pushing across the local authorities. I can assure Deputy Murphy of that.
4. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to outline his views on the supply of housing; and on whether regulatory costs imposed since the introduction of the new Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014 are responsible for dampening construction activity in the private housing sector. [22632/15]
This question relates to the Building Control (Amendment) Regulations 2014. We have seen a major downturn in the construction of one-off houses, up to 70% in some cases, year-on-year according to the most recent figures produced. Ridiculous prices are also being charged, as was predicted. Many of the doomsday scenarios we had predicted associated with this legislation have, unfortunately, come home to roost. Has the Minister taken note of these reductions? Has he taken note of the consternation that it has caused in the one-off house-building sector? When can the Minister expect to address this issue, further to his recent announcements on same?
The Government’s Construction 2020 strategy sets out a comprehensive package of measures to restore the construction sector to a sustainable position within our economy and sets out a number of actions to increase the supply of good quality houses to meet a growing demand. My Department is the lead Department for a range of the Construction 2020 actions in the areas of housing and planning. Strong progress is being made, as demonstrated by the roll-out of the social housing strategy and the ongoing work on new planning legislation.
Deputy Cowen raised the matter of regulatory costs. The Urban Regeneration and Housing Bill 2015 provides for amendments to the Part V provisions on social and affordable housing in the Planning Acts. There will be an opportunity in the coming days to debate some of the aspects of this.
As a result of the Government's proactive and focused approach, house building activity is now showing clears signs of recovery. Moreover, we now have a credible building control regulatory framework in place, underpinned by the new arrangements introduced by SI 9 of 2014.
In overall terms, I am satisfied that the new building control regime represents a reasonable and appropriate response to the many building failures that occurred in the past decade and will lead to improved quality within the construction sector, something we would all welcome.
However, I am conscious that concerns have been raised relating to the costs imposed by SI 9 of 2014 relating to single dwellings, including self-builds and extensions, as referred to by the Deputy. As Minister of State, I have a responsibility to ensure that the cost of compliance with regulations is fair, reasonable and proportionate. I have already publicly indicated my willingness to consider concerns expressed and take whatever steps are reasonable and appropriate to address them.
A broad review of SI 9 of 2014 is currently under way and includes a special focus on the impact of the regulations on single dwellings and extensions in particular. A report on the key concerns raised during the review and the recommended course of action for addressing these concerns will be prepared by my Department in the coming weeks with a view to ensuring that any changes deemed appropriate will be effected as a matter of priority subsequently.
I welcome that the Minister of State has committed to considering the key concerns emerging from the review with a view to amending the regulations introduced by statutory instrument in 2014. I urge him to ensure his Department and those who have responsibility in this area move swiftly to rectify the problems that have arisen in regard to one-off house building and extensions to houses because they are causing fear and consternation. I ask him to move speedily in addressing these issues.
I acknowledge the Deputy's views. New housing completions in 2014 amounted to 11,016 units nationally, an increase of 33% on the 2013 figure, with a further 2,639 units completed in quarter one of this year, an increase of 26% on the previous year. The projections for increased housing output are positive. In respect of planning permissions in the pipeline, planning permissions were granted for 2,144 dwelling units in the third quarter of 2014, compared to 1,400 in the same period of the previous year. This represents an increase of 52%. In line with the general collapse in economic and construction activity, the one-off house building sector contracted dramatically in the period from 2005 to 2013, with the number of units built falling from more than 19,000 to just under 3,000. Positive signs can now be seen, however, with 864 commencement notices for one-off homes recorded during the first four months of this year. If this level of activity persists, we can expect between 2,500 to 3,000 one-off homes to be developed in the current year. I take note of the Deputy's concerns, however, and hope to address them in the coming weeks.
In February, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government confirmed that the number of commencements had decreased since the introduction of the building control (amendment) regulations. It indicated that more than 5,000 construction projects commenced since the new regulations took effect on 1 March 2014, of which more than 1,100 were new build single dwellings. In comparison, the total number of commencement notices lodged for 2013, an historic low point for activity, was 7,456, including 3,000 for one-off houses. That underlines my point that the construction of one-off housing and extensions declined by up to 70%. Rather than argue the figures, I acknowledge the commitment made by the Minister of State in regard to the review and ask that the concerns expressed by those in the construction sector and engineering professionals are addressed by amending the regulations.
The Deputy will agree that dramatic decrease in one-off house construction was due to a number of reasons, primary among them the economic consequences of the crash and access to credit for young people who wanted to build homes on their own land. It is not entirely due to the cost of regulations but the Minister and I have undertaken to review the regulations after one year. I met all the stakeholders in the Custom House and I listened carefully to their concerns. A number of detailed submissions have been made and they are currently being reviewed and analysed. We will be considering them further in the coming weeks and I hope to respond appropriately to any concerns. We must be conscious of the need for quality and sustainability in housing construction, as well as learn from the mistakes of the past, but I acknowledge that genuine concerns arise and I will endeavour to address them.
5. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government in relation to a letter sent from a multinational company to his Department in February 2012 regarding proposals to install water meters, as released to this Deputy under the Freedom of Information Act 2014 (details supplied), if he will indicate the context and assumptions under which the company made its key proposals; if it was assumed at the time that the soon to be established water utility would be made available for sale eventually, either in part or entirely; the initial contact the letter was responding to; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22636/15]
I tabled this question on foot of a letter I requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2014. I am seeking clarity on the assumptions behind the departmental position paper to which the letter refers.
The programme for Government included a proposal to establish Irish Water, a State-owned water company that would take over the water investment and maintenance programmes of the 34 city and county councils who acted as water services authorities. The programme of financial support for Ireland with the EU, IMF and ECB also required the preparation of proposals for implementation of the recommendations for an independent assessment of the transfer of responsibility for water service provision to a water utility and the introduction of water charges.
A team led by PricewaterhouseCoopers was appointed through an open competition to conduct the independent assessment. The first part of this study, the Irish Water phase one report, was published for public consultation in January 2012 along with a departmental position paper setting out the overall approach to reforms in the water sector. This six week public consultation lasted from 16 January 2012 to 24 February 2012 and covered a range of water sector reforms, including the establishment of a new public utility, Irish Water, to take over the responsibility for the delivery of water services from local authorities; the introduction of water charges based on metered usage, with the metering programme to commence later in 2012; and the introduction of independent economic regulation of the water sector under the Commission for Energy Regulation. The aim in conducting this public consultation was to facilitate a more informed and inclusive debate on the fundamental reforms proposed for the water sector. These reforms sought to ensure that the appropriate organisation and funding models were in place to deliver water services to existing and future users, while also providing the volume and quality of water and waste water services required to protect public health and support employment.
The Deputy's question pertains to a letter which was one of the 270 submissions made to my Department in response to this public consultation. All of the submissions, of which 32 were from companies, were published on the Department’s website, together with the implementation strategy for the water sector reform programme in December 2012. I cannot speculate on the assumptions made by the company in question when it was formulating its response to the public consultation. The Government is committed to maintaining Irish Water in public ownership.
I accept that the company is making the assumptions to which I refer but its letter states:
There should however be an exit/separation strategy in the event that the Water utility needed to be in a stand alone position at some time in the future. A key consideration for this approach is the method of providing funding during the start up phase and the impact of the eventual sale.
Why would the company presume that the water utility would eventually be sold if it was responding to a position paper? I did not find anything in the paper that would lead it to that conclusion. I tabled the question to find out whether there was an underlying assumption in this regard and whether a dialogue had been entered into on the Government's long-term intentions for the ownership of the new entity.
I appreciate the reasons for the Deputy's questions but I cannot make assumptions on what Siemens was thinking. It is a private company. Similarly, I cannot make assumptions about any of the other submissions made during the public consultation. The letter from Siemens, which I have read, was received during the public consultation phase and raises a number of issues and recommendations on how the establishment of the entity should proceed and how the metering programme should be implemented. I genuinely do not know the assumptions behind its participation in the consultation, nor does my Department. It made its own assumptions and it wrote the letter on that basis. It was a matter for those participating in the public consultation to offer ideas or raise concerns based on their own assumptions. Those assumptions were the company's business, although I do not agree with many of them.
I take it that the assumption that there was ever any intention to sell the utility off is completely its own and had nothing to do with the political approach that was being taken.
Absolutely. I cannot speak on behalf of Siemens which made its own assumptions, and in this case I would say wrongly. I do not know; that is just my opinion. I do not know on what it based its assumptions. I have no idea. As part of an early round of public consultation, it made its decision to submit its letter, offering ideas and concepts. It made assumptions for that. I have no idea on what it based those assumptions. I have no information to suggest it based its assumptions on anything except itself and possibly another party with which it may have discussed putting forward this submission. In many cases I think its assumptions are wrong obviously. As the Deputy knows, I feel very strongly on the whole issue of public ownership. That is the bottom line.
