Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 19 Jun 2018

Vol. 970 No. 4

Topical Issue Debate

School Meals Programme

For 18 years, early bird breakfast clubs have been a huge success in Ballymun. Last year alone, 58,840 breakfasts were served at five DEIS schools in the Ballymun area. Some of the funding for the scheme was provided through the Ballymun local drugs and alcohol task force as well as from other funding sources in different Departments. The BEST project was tasked with managing the scheme and 18 staff, most of whom are working on a part-time basis, administer and operate it.

Children who are served a wholesome breakfast in the morning are better equipped to face a day of learning and concentration in these schools. Some of the children come from highly deprived backgrounds and they need all the supports and help they can get. The loss of the breakfast clubs is a considerable blow, not only to the children but also to their families who rely on these supports and help.

The staff employed by the service receive special training and attend courses in all aspects of child protection. They are trained to the highest standards.

The social interaction between children, who meet friends, teachers and staff, has helped to shape their future. The benefits of sitting down together and having a proper meal in a proper environment should not be underestimated. There is a real fear that standards, which have been improving, will fall and children may lose out, especially those from minority backgrounds.

The BEST project has sought to secure funding but has run into a brick wall. The excuse given is that employing staff is not necessary and schools can handle the service by providing a snack and a lunch. I have spoken to some of the schools and they will struggle hard to do this. It will place significant strain on the schools in question, some of which do not have the necessary resources.

The withdrawal of funding by the task force is regrettable, especially as no other funding stream has been identified. Is funding available from any other source, for example, the Department of Education and Skills, Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection or Tusla? Could funding be found elsewhere to continue employing these staff and help alleviate the problem? The threat is immediate as notices have been served on staff. We will lose the project in Ballymun shortly, which would be a disaster. It has worked well for 18 years in spite of considerable problems in the area where many children are at risk.

I thank the Deputy for raising this Topical Issue. I also acknowledge that Deputy Noel Rock has been in discussions with me on this issue for more than a month.

To give the Deputy some background, my Department is providing funding for school meals in more than 1,580 schools and other organisations. The programme, which supports more than 248,000 children, will cost approximately €54 million in 2018, which is an increase of €6.5 million over the previous year. It is important to make that point because it makes a valuable contribution and its effect on the lives of the children who avail of the programme is, as Deputy Ellis described, tangible. It is not something fuzzy or woolly. The objective of the scheme is to provide regular, nutritious food to children who are unable, perhaps due to the lack of good quality food, to take full advantage of the education being provided to them.

In recent years, priority for new applications for funding has been given to schools that are part of the Department of Education and Skills initiative for disadvantaged schools, Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools, DEIS, in line with the national policy framework for children and young people, Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures. The schools in Ballymun, which are affected by the proposed closure of the breakfast club, all have DEIS status and receive funding from my Department under the school meals programme. That will not change. The breakfast clubs in Ballymun, which Deputy Ellis described as "early bird clubs", are operated by the Ballymun educational support team school completion programme, BEST SCP, and have been part of the Ballymun local drugs and alcohol task force funding provision through Department of Health funding for the past 18 years. The channel of funding is the City of Dublin Youth Service Board and City of Dublin Education and Training Board.

According to the Ballymun local drugs and alcohol task force, the allocation for the 2017 school calendar year was €122,716, and €87,716 to the end of June 2018. The funding provided is used for food, staffing to prepare the food and supervise the breakfast clubs in seven schools during school term, insurance, training, etc., and has been administered centrally by BEST SCP. The rationale for the Ballymun local drugs and alcohol task force funding these clubs was to support school retention and participation, especially for those families struggling to provide basic supports for their children in the mornings. In an effort to maximise its funding and to focus more sharply on individuals, children and families with the most acute needs or at most acute risk due to drugs and alcohol issues, the task force in its allocation for 2018 only approved funding until the end of June and wrote to BEST SCP and local school principals to advise of this.

The task force also allocated additional resources to engage an independent contractor to work with each school to provide support to make the necessary applications and arrangements to ensure breakfasts continued in their schools through the school meals programme, and that they were embedded directly in each school going forward. The contractor has met the Ballymun principals' network and has been in touch with each school to assist in assessing how the breakfast clubs could be provided by the respective schools in future.

The school meals programme has a particular focus on the provision of breakfast clubs because they provide positive outcomes for vulnerable children in terms of their energy levels, punctuality and school attendance. The scheme provides funding for either a breakfast or a snack for all children and lunch for up to 90% of children in DEIS schools for the entire school year from September to June. At present, all of the schools affected are funded for all children for a snack club and a lunch club. If individual schools wish to receive funding for a breakfast club, they will lose their funding for snack clubs and obviously children would get breakfast instead of a snack.

My Department provides funding for food costs to a number of school completion programmes, SCPs, throughout the country. The SCP co-ordinator, who is generally based in one of the larger schools in an area, submits an application on behalf of the schools under its remit. The co-ordinator distributes the funding to the constituent schools and the schools operate the clubs. Occasionally, the SCP will operate the club in one school drawing in the pupils from the other schools under its remit.

My Department has not received any application from BEST SCP to participate in the school meals programme to date. If an application is received, it will be considered favourably. A new round of school meal programmes is to be announced next week, for which BEST SCP can certainly apply.

A meeting scheduled for today did not take place. I can only encourage Deputy Ellis, if he has any influence, to ensure this meeting takes place and an application is made.

I acknowledge that the Ballymun drugs task force has made it clear it will not continue to provide the funding of €122,000. I spoke to many of the principals of the affected schools and most acknowledge they can handle a certain reduction in funding.

It is clear this scheme has worked well over the years. I note the Department provides a snack and a lunch, which is reasonable. The parents to whom I have spoken have said these breakfast clubs have been remarkable in how they shaped and engaged with the children in the area. Their benefits have been considerable.

The figure involved is not nearly €122,000 because it is an acknowledgement that it will be possible to obtain the food required for the clubs in the five DEIS schools in the area. The issue is the staff who are employed in the schools for this purpose. One of the principals made clear to me that it will be extremely difficult to manage without these staff. That must be taken into account. If the benefits of the programme are as great as what I have heard and seen over the years, it would be crazy to allow the clubs to close for the sake of the small amount of money needed to retain the necessary staff.

Once again, I plead with the Minister. I will try to speak to BEST and others about engaging, although the organisation has indicated it has engaged. I acknowledge that Deputy Rock spoke to BEST and the Minister. BEST was informed, however, that there is no other Department to which it can turn for funding for staff. This has impacted heavily on its approach.

It is a shame and I urge the Minister to see if she can look at it again, engage and see if the funding can be provided.

It is obvious how emotionally engaged Deputy Dessie Ellis is on this matter. I do not mean to be patronising, but it is really lovely to see. I am not refusing anybody's help. The first thing my Department does is give money for food, which we gladly give. We already know and appreciate the impact it has and that will not change. The second thing we do is provide money through community employment schemes. We have not reduced it either. If anybody wants to approach us on new initiatives or move places, that is certainly something at which we can look.

The crux of the matter is that for some reason Dublin City Council and the education and training board have decided to stop funding what they have been funding for 18 years, with no explanation and for no obvious reason. I am not shirking my responsibilities and will gladly go with the Deputy and organise a meeting. That is not a problem, but the question has to be asked as to why the task force saw fit to stop doing something in which they saw value for 18 years? The only thing I can do in the short term is to genuinely encourage those involved through the school completion programme to apply for the exceptional needs money where there are cases where SCP co-ordinators help in schools. If I can assist in that way, I will gladly do so, but the real elephant in the room is why an organisation that is funded by the State through the Department of Health saw value in doing something for 18 years and now no longer sees the value in it. It needs to be made responsible to at least answer to us why it has stopped providing the service, what it expects the people who were going to be employed to do. It needs to answer serious questions about why it saw fit to stop funding the service, what it will use the funding for in the future if it will not use it for the seven schools in Ballymun, but, within in my personal remit, they will continue to be supplied with food. That is a given. If Deputies Dessie Ellis and Noel Rock could work together to make sure the meeting that was scheduled to happen today will happen in the next couple of days and an application is made to the SCP, we will look at it on its merits, but it has to be reflective of the practice, goodwill and positive outcomes achieved in the seven schools in Ballymun. The Deputies know that I grew up there and attended one of the schools years ago.

School Patronage

I am disappointed that the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Richard Bruton, is not taking this matter because I understand from the rules of the House that if a Minister is not available to Deputies on a particular day, a matter such as this can be deferred. I was not informed that the Minister would be unavailable.

The problems associated with Scoil Náisiúnta Bhrighde in Faughart, County Louth have been ongoing for quite some time. My office has been dealing with representations from many of the families with children who have been impacted on by the saga that has been ongoing in the school since May 2017. Neither the Minister, the Archbishop of Armagh, Eamon Martin, nor the patron of the school up until the time it closed its doors in mid-September 2017 could find a solution to what had been an ongoing problem within the school related to leadership and management and the consequent fallout of a drop in enrolments due to falling standards at the school. Dozens of families in the community were left with no option but to withdraw their children from the school, because of the failure or inability of the Department to deal with the issues at the time. The school has remained closed ever since. It operated with three teachers, a secretary and a caretaker. Before it closed there were 23 boys and 32 girls attending, down from a high of over 100 pupils in its heyday.

The church closed the school to find a solution to the problems, but at the time it was said clearly both to me and others that it would allow it to be divested to another patron once the problems regarding the poor management of the school were solved. Archbishop Martin has been contacted by me without response, but he did respond to others, including representatives of the parents' group. In a recent reply he stated he had no objection in principle to the possibility of the Department, following due process, making a decision on the opening of a new school under different patronage on the former Scoil Bhrighde site. However, in his letter he stated he had asked the Department for documentation on the process but that he had not received the documentation he had requested. He also said that he was not aware that there had been a demand for a change of patronage or diversity in patronage provision while the school was open. He also believed it was reasonable for any decision on a change of patronage to be made following a plebiscite or other form of wider consultation within the local community.

The archbishop cannot but be aware of the requests for a change of patronage since the school closed. He has also stated that, as a trustee of the trust which owns the property and as Archbishop of Armagh, he has a responsibility to the parish of Faughart to ensure the religious education of the children of the parish, including their sacramental preparation, is safeguarded. I have received confirmation from the Louth Meath Education and Training Board that preparation for the sacraments would be carried out in conjunction with the local parish. Archbishop Martin has asked for clarification from the Department on whether such a change of patronage would essentially involve the opening of a new school rather than a transfer of patronage to an existing school. He has said he expects the same criteria of assessment to apply as normally apply in the case of a proposed new school. I completely understand the concerns of the archbishop in that regard and also in regard to religious education, but surely a mechanism can be found to satisfy his concerns to enable the school to reopen to the satisfaction of the parents and community as speedily as possible.

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter as it gives me an opportunity on behalf of the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Richard Bruton, to set out for the DáiI the position on voluntary reassignment of patronage under section 8 of the Education Act 1998. As the Deputy will be aware, the Minister has announced new plans aimed at accelerating the provision of multi-denominational and non-denominational schools across the country in line with the choices of parents, families and school communities and the commitment in the programme for Government to reach a figure of 400 such schools by 2030. The previous model of patronage divestment yielded only a very limited number of schools for transfer to multi-denominational patrons. The number was ten since 2013. The new schools reconfiguration for diversity process has the potential to significantly increase patron diversity in the school system.

The early movers provision of the schools reconfiguration for diversity process involves voluntary reassignments of patronage under section 8 of the Education Act 1998. This fast-track process is part of the plan to accelerate the delivery of multi-denominational and non-denominational schools. The new process, which supports transfers of schools to multi-denominational patrons in response to the wishes of local families, is based on the principles of transparency and co-operation. It involves consultation with the school community, the local community and the current patron and reflects their wishes in a request to transfer patronage under section 8 of the Education Act.

In the case of the school to which the Deputy refers, the Department will consider any request that may be made by the existing patron for a transfer of patronage to a multi-denominational patron under the early movers provision. The first reconfiguration under the early movers provision of the new process has taken place successfully, with Two Mile community national school opening in September 2017.

In cases such as Faughart, individual early movers are being facilitated with immediate transfers to multidenominational or non-denominational patrons where the community and the current patron have opted voluntarily to do so. If there is agreement on the transfer of patronage, the procedure is that the archdiocese will write to the Department with a request under section 8(3) of the Education Act 1998 for the Minister to amend the patron register in respect of the school on the application of the existing patron, as the person who stands for the time being registered as the patron of the school.

I understand there has been some interaction locally with multidenominational patrons, including a meeting between representatives of the former Scoil Náisúnta Bhrighde parents' association and Louth and Meath Education and Training Board, LMETB, in this regard. The Department has been contacted by some of these parties but indicated that this was a matter for the patron rather than the Department at this point. The Department has also responded to correspondence from the existing patron seeking clarification on the early movers provision of the schools reconfiguration for diversity process. The Department has indicated it would view any request to transfer patronage in this case positively.

I understand the transfer of patronage can be fast-tracked in this case. The Louth and Meath Education and Training Board is capable and perhaps one of the best in the country at education and school management. It has said the school could be opened for September 2018. In a previous life I was the principal teacher in a rural school. The Minister of State knows that the rural school is the hub of most communities and it is sad and disappointing, notwithstanding the valiant effort of the parents and families and the community of Faughart, that the school remains closed. My concern is that there is obfuscation and fudge. The patron has written to the Department with questions he wants answered. The Minister of State mentioned an early movers provision but if that is not made within a certain period, people will find other places, as they would in any rural community, and they have done so in Faughart. The patron has written letters setting out what the effects would be on the other schools. It would only reverse the difficulty the school had before it closed.

The Minister has sent out a first round of surveys under the consultation plan for the divestment of schools and he is also seeking to outlaw the baptism barrier for entry to Catholic schools. However, as matters stand, the Catholic bishops have the final say on which schools they transfer and what type of school will emerge. It is my clear understanding, having taken advice, that the Education Act 1998 makes provision for the existing patron to transfer patronage to another patron. I have been advised that Archbishop Martin has withdrawn as patron of Faughart. That is an important point.

It is the parents' wish to reopen the school in September under the patronage of the Louth and Meath Education and Training Board. The LMETB has confirmed to me that it is willing to open the school this September under its patronage and 30 families have already filled in an expression of interest form to send their children, both returning and new, to Faughart school under that patronage. I implore the Minister to meet Archbishop Martin to obtain from him the letter of request needed to enable the transfer of patronage to take place. Any further delay will weaken the spirit of community in the area. As a former teacher, the Minister of State knows the importance of rural schools as hubs in the community. Allowing this to go beyond September would run the risk of the school never reopening and we would have another Drimoleague.

The Department has been contacted by some of the parties but has indicated this is a matter for the patron. I take the Deputy's point that he is asking the Minister to meet Archbishop Martin and obtain from him the request necessary for a transfer of patronage to take place. The Department has indicated it would review positively any request to transfer patronage in this case.

Public Procurement Contracts

The knock-on effect of the collapse of the Sammon Group on small subcontractors who are owed significant amounts of money is very worrying. This case also highlights a more widespread problem in the operation of public contracts, in this case the National Development Finance Agency, NDFA, which contracted for the work on behalf of the Department of Education and Skills. We must question the manner in which public contracts are designed in respect of the apparent lack of protections for subcontractors who are retained by the main contractor to carry out works on public projects, particularly when the NDFA, with Enterprise Ireland, participated in a meet the buyer event to provide information on supply chain opportunities for small and medium sized, SME, companies, in effect encouraging them to avail of these opportunities.

The liquidation of the Sammon Group is very regrettable, particularly for the 200 staff and their families. However, given the number and size of the projects undertaken by Sammon in recent years, the fact that it employed only 200 people directly demonstrates its dependence on subcontractors to undertake most of the construction work on its projects. In my constituency, Sammon recently completed the construction of a brand new school at Tullamore College at a cost to the Government of more than €12 million. I am extremely concerned to learn that a number of subcontractors who worked on the school have been left out of pocket owing to non-payment by the main contractor. In one case, more than €40,000 is owed to a small contractor who spent many months working on the site. This contractor tells me he cannot sustain this level of debt and he will have no option but to cease trading. I have received a large number of representations from local contractors who have been left badly out of pocket by this particular contract and other contracts. History appears to be repeating itself. In 2010, Pierse Construction collapsed leaving subcontractors without payment. They had no option but to protest at the official opening of schools in counties Offaly and Laois, notably in Ferbane and Banagher where I was in attendance.

The Government has a duty to ensure that when large sums of taxpayers' money are being paid to the main contractor on public contracts, this money makes its way to the subcontractors who are carrying out most of the work. Most of these small businesses have secured specific lines of credit for the purchase of materials on the strength of their retention on public contracts. These small businesses are then unable to pay their staff and suppliers and the negative consequences continue. The Government is committed to investing in large infrastructural projects under Project Ireland 2040 and we must ensure this results in a positive economic stimulus for the local economy and that subcontractors are not afraid to avail of these opportunities on the basis that they may not be paid.

The construction industry was hit very badly by the economic crash. Now that it is recovering and the volume of work is expected to increase significantly in the coming years, it is vital that the State put in place better protections for subcontractors who are the backbone of our local communities. We have to look at the main contractors' track records on previous contracts before they are awarded further public work. If the main contractor has a poor track record of looking after its subcontractors, we must not continue to reward it with lucrative public contracts. Lessons must be learned from the past. From my discussions with contractors, some have suggested that the problem with the business model is that the contract is awarded to the lowest tender and subcontractors are left to bear the risk of non-payment by using their overdraft facilities to fund the work.

In additional, subcontractors have asked who will provide the warranty for the work already carried out if only part of the job is completed by whichever company has been awarded the contract to finish the jobs to ensure the affected schools are open in time for September.

I thank Deputy Corcoran Kennedy for raising this issue. Unfortunately, the issue has been raised on more than one occasion recently. It is not a new development and reflects poor payment practices in the construction industry generally.

Former Senator Feargal Quinn's Construction Contracts Act was developed in consultation with industry to address these poor payment practices. The Bill was introduced to Seanad Éireann in 2010 and received cross-party support in both Houses. It was enacted in 2013. The Act applies to all construction contracts entered into after 25 July 2016. Responsibility for the administration of the Act lies with my colleague, the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation, whose Department has responsibility for prompt payment legislation. I understand this issue has arisen as a result of the transfer of responsibility within Departments and the movement of responsibilities from one Department to another.

That small and medium-sized enterprises were not in receipt of payments due on a construction project was unacceptable at the time of enactment and the same applies today. It must be acknowledged that the contractor in question had been awarded a number of public works contracts prior to its collapse.

This issue is not unique to public works by any means. It is more galling, however, when it arises under a public works contract since the State pays the contractor what the contractor is due when payment is due. The conditions of most construction contracts between construction clients and building contractors in the public and private sectors require that payments are made at defined intervals and that payment is contingent on work being completed to a predetermined standard. There is usually no contractual obligation on the main contractor to make payments to subcontractors because this is left to individual commercial arrangements that are contained in contracts. That is a fundamental point. The State and the awarding body, whether an education and training board or a board of management, do not have a contract with the subcontractor. It is the contractor that has responsibility to the subcontractor. I realise it is a moot point but it is ultimately one of the most important points.

The issues identified by Senator Quinn during the development of the construction contracts legislation highlighted an absence of formal contracts that set out the necessary commercial terms. In many cases this was exacerbated by sharp payment practices by some, even where a formal contract did exist. This was adverted to by Deputy Corcoran Kennedy.

The Construction Contracts Act imposes minimum terms on all construction contracts, whether written or oral, and provides the tools necessary to enforce payment. The tools include a maximum payment interval of 30 days and a requirement to honour payment requests within 30 days for subcontractors, a right of suspension for non-payment, and a right to refer a payment dispute to adjudication. The legislation also outlaws the practice of pay-when-paid provisions that were prevalent in most forms of subcontract.

While most of the interest from industry surrounding the Act was centred on the introduction of adjudication, it is the discipline that the legislation imposes on payments that would appear to be have been largely ignored. Arguably, the associated provisions are the most important but they require the subcontractor to enforce his entitlements proactively with the contractor in the manner prescribed in the legislation for payments that are due.

The Act does not cut across the normal rules for company liquidation or receivership, and so where this arises, there is no avenue for recovery. The magnitude of the exposure that many subcontractors face upon the insolvency of a contractor would not arise, however, if the provision for payments was insisted upon and the remedies available were exercised where payment is not forthcoming. The non-payment issues associated with the collapse of Sammon would suggest that subcontractors are not exercising the rights provided for in the Act. I know what Deputy Corcoran Kennedy has said. As was said by other Deputies last week, that is not always easy. This inaction is surprising given the welcome it received by all contracting tiers in the construction industry and the support it received from many Members of this House and the other House. I can appreciate a certain reticence to engage in the manner prescribed in the Act. Indeed, I know well why it is not happening. It is for fear of risking business. Subcontractors have to question whether it is worthwhile doing business with someone who is not complying with the law.

The matter was raised with me by two Fianna Fáil Deputies last week. I undertook to look at their specific issues. This discussion is part of a dialogue among people in the Department.

Inspired Spaces was the joint venture between Carillion and a Dutch infrastructure fund. The joint venture won the contract to build and manage the schools. A Carillion subsidiary was engaged to build, which in turn subcontracted to Sammon. This means a number of steps are in place before we get to the level of subcontracting to the local small and medium-sized enterprises.

I wonder about due diligence. When the financial close on schools public private partnership, PPP, bundle 5 was signed off, the project and financing agreements were signed and all the conditions contained had been satisfied by all parties. That occurred on 22 July 2016. On 10 July 2017, less than one year later, Carillion issued a trading update warning that it had £1.15 billion in losses by June 2017. If this was revealed, how is it that there was no indication of it in July 2016 when the contract had been awarded? Surely some kind of red flag should have been raised.

I have received some information from the Department on the matter. Is it wise that the public private partnership companies in receipt of the tenders are not due payment for the construction of the schools until they are handed over? It is no wonder that all these subcontractors are expected to fund operations at local level. It is their overdrafts that are being called on to provide the materials and labour. It is grand for a contractor to get a contract if the company does not need to have overdraft facilities in place and can use those of a subcontractor. The real problem seems to be the fact that no funding is handed over until the school is completed. Where is the funding to come from if the main company, in this case, Inspired Spaces, does not have the funds in place to deliver on the project in the first place? That is a significant issue and warrants further examination.

I am not going to dispute any of the comments that Deputy Corcoran Kennedy has made. This matter has been raised not only by Deputies on this side of the House but by Deputies on the other side of the House as well. I note the attendance of the former Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin. He was the Minister responsible for navigating the Construction Contracts Bill through the Dáil and Seanad.

Unfortunately, there is a limited culture in the construction industry that is not really acceptable. A remedy was introduced that was welcomed by all. It was understood that it would help to alleviate some of the problems. I experienced these problems in my constituency. A national school was held up for months, if not years, by such carry-on. To be honest, it is a cultural issue that needs addressing on several fronts.

I referenced that the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation has ultimate responsibility for the implementation of the Act as it stands. I am not passing the buck because this matter has been drawn to the attention of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform on several occasions recently. There is a discussion group in the Department in the area of construction. We have to be mindful of the fact that existing laws and legislation cover contract law and they have to be examined as well. The contract does not exist between the awarding authority, whether the Department of Education and Skills, the education and training board or the board of management, and the subcontractor. The subcontractors contract with the contractor. Unfortunately, the Department, Government, education and training board or board of management do not and cannot manage that relationship.

This is not an issue we are trying to run away from. In fact, the previous Fine Gael and Labour Party coalition Government introduced the legislation as a remedy. Remedies are available. I understand the reason that people may be reluctant to exercise them. Deputy Corcoran Kennedy has raised a specific case with me and I will ask the unit within the Department that deals specifically with this matter to look at it.

Unfortunately, I do not have anything positive to say in respect of the matters tied up and to which Deputy Corcoran Kennedy has referred. Certainly, that applies to matters that have been dealt with. Deputy Corcoran Kennedy made a point, however, that we need to try to protect people in future, and I concur with that. What that remedy is and what Department will address it is something we will have to work out, if we can work it out.

Planning Issues

I compliment the producers of last night's "RTÉ Investigates" programme, which really demonstrated the environmental damage that can be done when regulation is breached. Not only is it financially costly, it causes significant damage to our environment and to human health. The RTÉ programme focused on waste and non-compliance with a fragmented system of regulation, how those who flagrantly abuse any system of regulation are dealt with, the time it takes to deal with those who cause such damage and who ultimately picks up the bill.

The RTÉ programme looked at waste, but unauthorised development is another area that requires significant attention. A planning system is only as good as the enforcement. While local authorities have responsibility for planing enforcement, on occasions it also requires the involvement of the courts. I want to highlight in particular the issue of quarrying and I will focus on one particular example that is not in my constituency but it is in south Kildare, in Ballysax near the Curragh. The history of this quarry goes back to 1983 when it operated without permission. I shall refer, however, to 2012 when An Bord Pleanála wrote to the owners informing them that the quarry was unauthorised and did not have the benefit of planning permission because it did not avail of a section 261 regulation.

In August 2014 a new owner took over the quarry and it was clear from the outset that the intention was to scale up the quarrying operation. This drew many complaints to Kildare County Council and an enforcement notice was eventually issued in 2015 stating that they should close the quarry immediately with all equipment to be removed by mid June. That enforcement notice was ignored. Understandably there continued to be complaints from locals which culminated in locals protesting outside at the quarry on a regular basis. Gardaí were called on numerous occasions and, ironically, this resulted in some locals being arrested for breach of the peace. Kildare County Council gave an undertaking to some local Deputies they would take High Court action under section 160 of the regulations. A High Court appearance followed in late 2015 and a temporary closure was to follow, but that agreement was largely ignored.

Today in 2018 the quarry is still operating. Not only is the quarry operating to full capacity and breaking every planning law, it has in fact been extended to a massive 20 ha. In 2016 the council took the quarry owner to the Circuit Court. There were seven adjournments in the Circuit Court before a full hearing took place in June 2017, with the reserved judgment to follow. In November 2017 the judge gave his decision stating the quarry was an illegal development without planning permission since 1983. The judge ordered the quarry to be closed and the Kildare County Council legal team agreed a stay of five months, until February 2018. The quarry owner was granted additional time to lodge an appeal for a stay on the judge's decision.

Prior to the most recent High Court hearing I contacted the council, which was due to deal with the stay. I was told the expectation was that there would be a full hearing. I understand that the stay had elapsed, and while the judge appeared to favour the immediate closure, the quarry owner sought a recess to apply to another court for a stay. Kildare County Council's legal team did not object to this. The quarry owner came back to the court with a new stay and the judge suggested an October closure. The council agreed to a 2019 closure, as long as the council got its fees paid.

A small community settlement is in close proximity, details of which I can give to the Minister of State later. I emphasise the length of time it has taken to deal with this. Do we actually have planning enforcement at all?

I thank Deputy Catherine Murphy for raising this important issue on unauthorised developments and how they are not being complied with. I do not have the details of this specific case and I was not familiar with the story, but I am now aware of it.

At the outset, I will outline the Minister's role in relation to the planning system. It is mainly to provide and update the legislative and policy guidance framework. The legislative framework comprises the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, and the associated Planning and Development Regulations. Furthermore, my Department has issued a large number of planning guidelines under section 28 of the Planning Act to guide planning authorities in the implementation of the wider planning policy framework. Planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála are obliged to have regard to those guidelines in the exercise of their planning functions. The day-to-day operation of the planning system, however, is a matter for the individual planning authorities and under section 30 of the Act the Minister is specifically prohibited from exercising any power or control in relation to any particular case, including an enforcement issue, with which a planning authority or the board is, or may be, concerned with.

Under planning legislation, any development that requires permission and does not have that permission is an unauthorised development. This is also the case with a development that is proceeding in breach of conditions laid down in the planning permission, or any exempted development that is carried out that does not comply with the limitations of that exemption. The planning code also provides that enforcement of planning control is a matter for the individual planning authorities, which can take action if a development does not have the required permission or where the terms of a permission have not been met. In this regard, planning authorities have substantial enforcement powers under the Act. First, a planning authority may issue an enforcement notice in connection with an unauthorised development, requiring such steps as the authority considers necessary to be taken within a specified period. If an enforcement notice is not complied with, the planning authority is further empowered to enter on the land and take such steps including the removal, demolition or alteration of any structure as is deemed necessary, as well as to recover any costs incurred in undertaking such actions. Second, a planning authority may also seek a court order under section 160 of the Act, requiring any particular action to be done or not to be done.

Taking account of the above points, responsibility for enforcement action on any breach of the planning code is a matter for individual planning authorities under the powers available to them under the Planning Act. Accordingly, individual cases of unauthorised developments or non-compliance with planning permissions should be brought to the attention of the relevant planning authority, which can then take the necessary and timely action as provided for in planning legislation.

I am aware that Deputy Murphy has raised a specific case but it is not something I can get into because it is down to the local planning authority. We constantly review the powers available to the local planning authority through the planning code and the Planning Act, and we issue guidance on that also. A planning Bill is coming through the House currently and a second one is coming in the autumn. If any issues are raised from these cases or other cases we can look at it to see if we can strengthen the law. The enforcement of the law is at a local level and that is being strengthened there as well.

In some cases it can be an issue of resources. The Department makes it very clear that we try to work with local authorities to ensure resources are put back into local authorities, and in the context of making up for the last couple of years. The authorities should be in the position to deal with these cases. From a planning perspective the planning code is there and if we need to enhance it further we can look at it through the future planning Bills. I thank the Deputy for raising the general issue in the Chamber.

This quarry is not a small development: it is 20 ha. A small local community of 11 families lives near to it. Four of the family members in those 11 houses now have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and others are using inhalers. There is a significant problem with dust and on their doctors' advice the families stay inside when the wind blows predominantly towards their homes.

Some 150 trucks per day - 40 ft articulated trucks - travel to and from the quarry on small rural roads. They start at 5.30 a.m. and there is a serious problem with sleep disturbance for the families. The road conditions are also dangerous. Because there is no planning permission for the development there is no bond and no possibility of money for the remediation. One could, at this point, predict that the public purse will end up picking up the cost of this. Last night's RTÉ programme showed us the kinds of damage that can be done in the waste sector.

If this development had planning permission there would be a regime around it. There are laws in theory but in practice it is going in and out of the courts. People who comply with the law are at a disadvantage against those who break the law because they stretch it out the whole time. This case offers a breathtaking level of non-compliance. Every court, An Bord Pleanála and the local authority are being ignored. While I use this case as a specific example there is a serious problem with planning enforcement. There is great variation in levels of enforcement, depending on where one is in the State. If this site had planning permission there would be a bond and a time allowed for operation. A time would be set outside of which it could not operate. Currently we cannot even insist on the enforcement of planning conditions because there is no planning permission with conditions.

I ask that the Minister of State look at the theory to see if it is working in practice. I was a councillor since 1991 so I have dealt with the planning system for a long time. I have never once seen the local authority going in to take action or physically remove things using the section referred to by the Minister of State. I do not believe it happens anywhere. The provision is there in theory but it has to be there in practice. The local authority should be there for the public good and I do not believe that what is happening here between the courts and the local authority in this regard is in the public interest.

The role of the Minister and me in the planning system is to provide and update the legislation and policy guidance framework. The Minister cannot get involved in, or exercise any power in respect of, any particular case, including an enforcement issue with which a planning authority is or may be concerned. Responsibility for enforcement action in respect of any breach of the planning code is a matter for individual planning authorities. Part VIII of the Planning and Development Act 2000 sets out the comprehensive enforcement powers that are available to planning authorities.

Alongside general issues, the Deputy has raised issues with this specific case, as have Deputy Heydon and others. I have committed to considering whether these powers need to be strengthened in forthcoming planning legislation. They are already strong, though, and I expect local authorities to be in control and, where necessary, to enforce. We feel strongly in that regard. We review local authorities' powers constantly and will do so again under various Acts to determine whether strengthening them is necessary.

I agree with Deputy Catherine Murphy that there can be delays in planning authorities taking enforcement actions against unauthorised developments. Situations can arise where, for instance, damage is caused to roads by construction activity and, if not acted upon, can become a source of annoyance and inconvenience for local residents and result in a cost to the taxpayer. We need to strengthen our position on enforcement. Local authorities have been strengthened in financial and staffing terms. If we need to strengthen the legislation, we can consider doing so, but existing powers provide authorities with a good opportunity to enforce regulations in the way they should be.

Regarding annoyance, inconvenience and taxpayers' money, the earlier that individual cases of unauthorised developments or non-compliance with planning permissions are brought to the attention of planning authorities, the earlier the relevant enforcement powers provided for in the legislation can be activated by those authorities. In the event that it is considered that there is undue delay or failure on the part of a planning authority to address an enforcement issue, a complaint can be made to the Ombudsman. I am unsure as to whether that has happened in this case as I do not know the specifics, but it is an option. We will also consider powers in that regard.

When an issue is causing people distress and inconvenience, the local authority should use its position and powers.

Barr
Roinn