Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 16 Feb 2023

Vol. 1033 No. 5

Saincheisteanna Tráthúla - Topical Issue Debate

Medical Cards

We are here to discuss just exactly what this enhanced medical card will be for the survivors of mother and baby homes. I know the issue has been ongoing for a long time. Unfortunately, when I say it has been going on for a long time, I mean that none of these people are getting any younger. I am being constantly asked when this enhanced medical card is going to be given to survivors, what it covers and more importantly, what it does not cover. I am being asked for an actual date for its release. I contacted the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth a number of days ago because elderly people are contacting me about the matter. One issue that was mentioned in relation to the enhanced medical card was cataract operations. Unfortunately, I have been told by the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth that that is not going to be covered.

As I said, I am here today to try to get clarity for those people who will have underlying conditions, whether it is diabetes or whatever else. I am trying to get clarity for them in order that they will know, without fear, what they are actually covered for with this enhanced medical card. It is putting stress on people. Indeed, some of the people I have spoken to have said they are holding back in the hope that the card will come sooner rather than later. Of course, these people do not have a lot of money and probably do not have the means to travel under the cross-Border healthcare directive for specific treatment. I said that I would raise the matter here in the Topical Issue debate to try to get clarity on what is coming down the road and to alleviate any fears for these people. I look forward to hearing the Minister of State's response.

I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue, which I am taking on behalf of the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O'Gorman. He sends his apologies but he had to attend a meeting.

I thank the Deputy for raising this important health benefit for discussion. The Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme Bill will provide financial payments and an enhanced medical card to eligible people in recognition of the suffering they experienced in a mother and baby or county home institution. The enhanced medical card will provide those eligible with a statutory entitlement to a range of health services. It will ensure the provision, without charge, of the following primary and community health services: GP services; prescribed drugs, medicines, aids and appliances; dental, ophthalmic and aural services; home nursing; home support; counselling; chiropody and podiatry; and physiotherapy.

As well as the above services, cardholders will not be required to pay the €100 emergency department statutory charge or the €80 public hospital statutory charge. It is estimated that through the scheme around 19,000 people will qualify for an enhanced medical card. Many people who spent time in these institutions now live outside Ireland. The scheme has been designed so that all those eligible to receive an enhanced medical card will have the option to receive one, even if they are not resident in Ireland. This means that while they are visiting Ireland or if they ever move back here, they can avail of health services using the card, which will be provided by the HSE. Alternatively, they can choose to receive a once-off payment of €3,000 in lieu of a card. This payment is in recognition of, and a contribution towards, their individual health needs. While acknowledging the challenge that healthcare costs can vary significantly across different individuals and different jurisdictions, a payment of €3,000 would represent a practical measure of acknowledgment for those who are living overseas and choose not to avail of the enhanced medical card.

Eligibility is based primarily on a minimum of six months spent in a former mother and baby or county home institution. This was approved by the Government on foot of the publication of the final report of the commission of investigation. This qualifying timeframe means the benefit will largely accrue to those who were residents prior to 1974, who likely experienced harsher conditions and who are more likely to be at the older end of the broad spectrum of survivors. This ties in with ensuring that access to health services is determined on the basis of need. It is important to note that outside the mother and baby institutions payment scheme, the overall Government response to the commission of investigation also includes the provision of counselling support, free of charge, to all survivors and former residents. This is provided through the national counselling service in the HSE.

I am acutely aware of the sense of urgency surrounding the establishment of the mother and baby institutions payment scheme. Ensuring it is open for applications as soon as possible is a key priority for the Department and the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman. It should be noted that this scheme will be the largest of its type in the history of the State in terms of the number of potential applicants. Therefore, the work required to deliver the scheme for applicants is significant. The legislation for the scheme is currently on Report Stage in the Dáil. In parallel with the legislative process, intensive work is under way on the development of the structures needed to administer the payment scheme, including an independent executive office situated in the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth.

I thank the Minister of State. I am disappointed by that response. The Minister of State said, "Alternatively, they can choose to receive a once-off payment of €3,000 in lieu of a card". To remove two cataracts costs €3,000. That payment is a one-stop shop. A survivor receives that one-hit payment for a life's suffering. That is an absolute disgrace.

I understand the offer of counselling and so on. We will be talking about mental health later. Many of these people do not want that counselling. I welcome the offer of the dental and other services the Minister has listed. However, I am worried. Survivors were promised an enhanced medical card. The Minister of State made reference to "those who were residents prior to 1974, who likely experienced harsher conditions and who are more likely to be at the older end of the broad spectrum of survivors". The survivors envisioned that the enhanced medical card, while not a get-out-of-jail card, would deal with all their medical needs. GP services are offered but most of the survivors already have a GP because they are lucky and were in the system many years ago.

There is something to the offer of dental services because some people have lost out in that regard. I know people who have spent a lot of money on dental services. I also welcome the offer of chiropody and psychotherapy services, and so on. I wanted to find out the date that these enhanced medical cards will issue but we are not going to get it. I understand there is a bit of work involved. I ask for more urgency on this matter because people are not getting any younger. I would like to see a bit of compassion and an assessment on a case-by-case basis. I acknowledge that is a big ask but surely there must be some leeway allowed if someone needs something like a cataract operation. Such procedures should be covered under the enhanced medical card. We do not have a date for the introduction of the scheme. I encourage the Government to speed up the process as much as it can.

I again thank the Deputy for raising this matter. I want to clarify one point. I said earlier, "While acknowledging the challenge that healthcare costs can vary significantly across different individuals and different jurisdictions, a payment of €3,000 would represent a practical measure of acknowledgment for those who are living overseas and choose not to avail of the enhanced medical card". That €3,000 refers to the overseas piece. I want to be clear about that.

The enhanced medical card is a critical component of the payment scheme and will provide significant benefits to an estimated 19,000 former residents of mother and baby institutions. It provides a statutory basis for access to more services than the standard medical card, including, physiotherapy, chiropody, counselling and home help. In addition, cardholders do not pay a prescription fee, receive enhanced dental services and can attend their GP of choice, once the GP is registered. The statutory entitlement to those services is significant in that these services are guaranteed.

As well as general payments, the work-related payments for those who are eligible, an €800 million payment scheme, represents a genuine effort by this Government to recognise and acknowledge the harsh conditions, emotional abuse and all forms of mistreatment, stigma and trauma that may have been experienced by former residents of a mother and baby or county home institution.

I take on board what the Deputy has said. An enhanced medical card scheme is intended to be exactly that - enhanced. It is to cover all aspects of healthcare. A person who has been waiting for access to cataract treatment for nine months would qualify for that treatment under the National Treatment Purchase Fund, which is reimbursed.

Survivors do not have access to that money.

The assessment is covered. Exactly as the Deputy said, if a prioritisation needs to be expedited, everybody will work to ensure that happens.

I will follow up on that. I thank the Minister of State.

Hospital Services

I am raising this matter because of the lack of clarity I received in reply to a parliamentary question about a 60-bed unit that was supposed to be built in St. Patrick’s Hospital, Cashel. We were told the money for the project was ring-fenced years ago. The response I received to that parliamentary question moved to discuss a 50-bed unit. I received an amended reply today that has returned to discussion of a 60-bed unit. I want to know what commitment has been given. Is the 60-bed unit going ahead? I need clarity on that point and perhaps the Minister of State could offer that clarity.

My second issue relates to a reference in the reply that stated this project went to the design stage in 2019. I understand there was a pandemic and I can see how that caused some delay. However, we are now four years down the road. It should not take four years to design a 60-bed unit, even with that delay. The reply also referred to an overview of the situation or a review of options.

Anybody will tell you that any review of options should be done before any design is put together. We worry whether something underhand is going on here because, all of a shot, we are being told about plans being reviewed when they were supposed to be at design stage in 2019. The reply goes on to outline the development of facilities for the children's disability network team, CDNT, but there is no indication elsewhere in the response that the design of the unit has resumed. Will the Minister of State fill us in on that? Has it resumed and at what stage is it? Will she clarify the timeframe for the delivery of the project? Will she explain what precisely the intention behind this statement is? Is it a warning that a U-turn could be in the offing? The purpose of parliamentary questions is to acquire information for the benefit of the public. We are being asked to find out what is the situation in my own town of Cashel. I will be fair; the former councillor in Cashel, Tom Wood, has been talking about this for a long time. He is on the ground every day but neither we nor he are getting any answers. We need clarity on this.

In the reply we got back, there was suddenly mention of a 60-bed unit at St. Anthony's in Clonmel, 18 miles away. We appreciate every bed that comes into County Tipperary but my parliamentary question was not about St. Anthony's in Clonmel but about a 60-bed hospital in Cashel. We were told the money had been ring-fenced for it but now all these doubts are popping up. To be fair, the HSE's record of provision in Tipperary has been very poor. A lot of things have been pulled by stealth. The worry is that this is another attempt to do a U-turn and get out of building this 60-bed unit. There is talk of reducing the 60 beds to 50 and of reviewing the options. We are asking the Minister of State to clear up the situation.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue and allowing me the opportunity to update the House on the plans to develop a 60-bed residential care centre at St. Patrick's Hospital, Cashel. In early 2016, a capital programme for older persons residential centres was developed in response to the introduction of HIQA's national residential care standards for older people and the requirement that all facilities providing long-stay beds be registered with HIQA. This is a programme to replace, upgrade and refurbish, as appropriate, care facilities at 90 locations. The vast majority of the projects relate to replacement capacity.

I am aware that, as he said in his contribution, the Deputy recently received a response to a parliamentary question stating that the development at St. Patrick's Hospital in Cashel was a new 50-bed community nursing unit. It has since been confirmed with the HSE that this was noted in error. It is, in fact, a 60-bed unit. An amended response was issued to the Deputy earlier today.

The HSE is committed to the development of a new community nursing unit for older persons in Cashel. Provision has been made in the capital programme 2023 to progress a 60-bed community nursing unit for Cashel. In 2019, the HSE engaged a design team to progress a new 60-bed community nursing unit project on the site of St. Patrick's Hospital, Cashel. The emergence of the Covid pandemic in March 2020 interrupted works on this project. As a response to Covid-19 risks, upgrade works were carried out to make facilities located on the campus of the nearby Our Lady's Hospital, Cashel, which is now named Cashel Residential Older Persons Services, suitable for long-stay residential use. Residents from St. Patrick's Hospital were moved to facilities on the campus of Our Lady's Hospital in June 2020. The HSE recognises that the move to the campus of Our Lady's Hospital was an interim solution due to a critical need caused by the pandemic. An assessment and rehabilitation unit and a day hospital for older persons services continue to operate at St. Patrick's Hospital.

Specialist renovation works have been carried out on some of the vacated space at St. Patrick's Hospital for the development of new facilities for the children's disability network team for Cashel, Tipperary and surrounding areas. This will also accommodate children's disability services originally based at Our Lady's Hospital. Other available space at St. Patrick's Hospital is being considered for the development of facilities for the HSE roll-out of the enhanced community care programme.

Site options for the new 60-bed unit for Cashel are under consideration. These options include building on the existing site and building on a new site. The HSE has engaged a design team to progress the new 60-bed community nursing unit for Cashel. Stage 1 design has been completed and is under review. HIQA registers all community nursing units for a three-year period. Six months prior to its registration expiring, a community nursing unit is obliged to submit an application to re-register the unit. Cashel Residential Older Persons Services have commenced this process with HIQA in order to ensure registration for another three years from June 2023.

I am not sure. I thought the Minister for Health was going to be here. He knows the situation. I am not having a go at the Minister of State but it is a joke that we are here again asking questions of a Minister for Health who has not appeared. The Minister of State has confirmed that it is a 60-bed unit. This reply states that it may be built on the existing site or on a new site. That throws everything up in the air again. There has never been mention of another site. It was always expected that this 60-bed extension would be on the St. Patrick's Hospital site. If we are to go to another site, how much longer will planning and so on drag on before this 60-bed unit is built in Cashel?

The Minister of State has not answered my question about what stage design is at. When can we expect to see work started? It should not be built on a new site because that throws everything in the air again. It actually maddens me at this stage to think that we have been waiting this long and there is now talk of a new site. What was the intention behind the statement that the HSE continues to review the options? I asked the Minister of State what that was about. That is one of the questions we wanted to ask the Minister regarding this development. Why is something that has gone to design now being reviewed? Anybody building anything will review options and decide what they want to put on a site before they go to the design stage. I have no doubt that the HSE has spent a fortune designing this 60-bed unit and it is now talking about reviewing it. It seems crazy and shows a total lack of respect for people in Cashel who have been expecting this unit all along.

The Minister of State still has not answered me as to why the Minister or the HSE decided to tell us about St. Anthony's in Clonmel. Is it to soften us up before dragging on with the unit at St. Patrick's Hospital for as long as possible, as there is a 60-bed unit 18 miles down the road, before finally pulling the plug, as happened with St. Brigid's Hospital in Carrick-on-Suir?

I am not one to defend the HSE but it has said that it got this wrong and apologised for that. Let us not go into conspiracy theories.

What did it get wrong?

The HSE answered a parliamentary question incorrectly. It rectified that answer today. I am now answering the Deputy's question so that he can tell his constituents that the design of a 60-bed unit is under review. That is important.

In the response to the parliamentary question, there is no mention of the other site raised in the reply the Minister of State has given me today.

I will read the closing statement because I am only the pigeon in the middle. Is that all right?

I know. I appreciate that. I said that. It is a disgrace that the Minister has not turned up again.

I again thank the Deputy for raising this issue. Work under the capital programme is progressing across the country to replace, upgrade and refurbish our current stock of community nursing units in response to the introduction of HIQA's national residential care standards for older people. The HSE is committed to the development of a new community nursing unit for Cashel. Provision has been made in the capital plan 2023 to progress a 60-bed community nursing unit for Cashel. The emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic impacted on all elements of life. Unfortunately, the 60-bed residential care centre at St. Patrick's Hospital, Cashel, was delayed by the pandemic. An interim solution to move the facilities located on the campus to Our Lady's Hospital, Cashel, was implemented. Services will be provided in St. Patrick's Hospital, Cashel. An assessment and rehabilitation unit and a day hospital for older persons continue to operate. Work has been carried out to accommodate new facilities for children's disability services and the enhanced community care programme. Older persons services and the estates unit of the HSE are progressing work on the plan for a community nursing unit for Cashel.

Cashel residential older persons service has commenced the community nursing registration process with HIQA in order to ensure reregistration for another three years from June 2023.

Water Services

I am disappointed that the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage is not here. The issue I tabled relates to the referendum on the public ownership of our water services. I asked when the Minister will bring forward the wording, which he committed to bringing forward early this year. I also asked for the date of the referendum.

On 12 October last year I asked about the referendum on the public ownership of our water services as well as the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, framework plan and the White Paper on water services transformation which was to be introduced on 1 January this year and it has. I pointed out the resistance of the water services workers to that framework plan because they neither had the date for the referendum on the public ownership of our water services nor any definite response from the Local Government Management Agency, LGMA, on their basic pay, their regular and rostered overtime and allowances which they have as water services workers within the local authority. At this stage we have no wording or date.

Last Friday, as the sponsor of the Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in Public Ownership) (No. 2) Bill 2016, I wrote a letter to the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. I have again asked the committee to schedule consideration of the Bill on its agenda and to allow the Bill as soon as possible to advance to Committee Stage. I sent this on the back of five previous letters to the committee.

The Minister wrote to me on 6 November stating he was happy to confirm he would bring forward proposals on a referendum on water ownership for consideration early in the new year. The housing commission report is imminent and we still have not seen a wording or a date. In the absence of wording and date, I request that the committee should either proceed with Committee Stage of my Bill or, with an extreme sense of urgency, request the Minister to meet the committee with wording and a date for a referendum to ensure the Minister's public commitment of early in the new year is adhered to.

Since then, Unite, the union, has rejected the WRC plan and will probably take industrial action on it in the future. There have been discussions on that. On 13 February SIPTU announced it was pausing its co-operation with the framework pending receipt of local authority confirmation that it will abide with the assurances issued by the Minister that current terms and conditions will be maintained, including basic pay, regular and rostered overtime, and allowances. The LGMA has made no such commitment. Either it has no direction from the Minister, it is ignoring the direction from the Minister or it does not have the money to administer it. This has created considerable anxiety and stress to the water services workers and their families.

While I would have preferred if the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage had been here, I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Chambers, when we will see the wording and the date for the referendum. The Unite workers rejected the framework plan on that basis. There is considerable disgruntlement among the water services workers in the four unions involved because they do not have a date or wording. They see that as a crucial part of any change in their workplace status.

I thank Deputy Joan Collins for raising this issue. I acknowledge and appreciate her dedication and commitment to ensuring that our waters services must always remain in public ownership. At the outset I say clearly and emphatically that the Government is committed to holding a referendum on water and it has already outlined its approach to achieving this. On 24 June 2022, a framework for the future delivery of water services was identified with unions at the Workplace Relations Commission. The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage also hosted parallel engagement with unions on a number of policy matters of relevance to workers in the context of the overall water transformation programme, including a referendum on water ownership.

A paper entitled Irish Water Transformation - the Wider Policy Context was shared with unions on 18 July 2022 to reflect the engagement outcomes. The framework document and the wider policy context paper are available to Members in the Oireachtas Library. In the context of the engagement on the referendum, it was noted that public ownership of the water services system, reflecting the clear will of the Irish people, is firmly established as a core principle attaching to delivery of water services. Over the years, this principle has been reflected and strengthened in legislation governing the development and delivery of water services. Arrangements for the enduring public ownership of Uisce Éireann are already firmly secured under the Water Services Acts 2007 to 2022, whereby all shares of Uisce Éireann are vested in the Ministers for Housing, Local Government and Heritage and for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, with both Ministers being prevented by law from alienating their shares.

Engagement with unions on the referendum question focused specifically on how the principle of public ownership may be strengthened through a constitutional referendum. A range of approaches to addressing State ownership of water services had received prior consideration by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General in the context of the Thirty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Water in Public Ownership) (No. 2) Bill 2016 brought forward by Deputy Joan Collins as a Private Members' Bill and currently before the Dáil.

An approach based on protecting the public ownership of the entity established under law to provide public water services has been identified as the most appropriate and straightforward approach. An important consideration in planning for a successful referendum is the need to ensure proper public engagement. Noting that the commission on housing has been specifically tasked with advising the Government on a referendum to place the right to housing in the Constitution, I understand that the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien's, preferred approach is to advance consideration of the constitutional issues on the rights to housing and protection for the supply of public water at the same time.

Having consulted with his Government colleagues, the Minister has signalled his willingness to support a referendum on public ownership along these lines. The Minister set out his planned approach in the Irish Water Transformation - Wider Policy Context paper shared with unions, as laid before the House, and this plan remains on course. The Minister will therefore bring detailed proposals to Government on a constitutional amendment to address water ownership in conjunction with the anticipated referendum proposal on housing on its receipt from the housing commission. It is understood that the housing commission will be in a position to present its report on the housing referendum in the near future. In this way, it is intended that definitive proposals, including timelines, for referendums on water and housing will be considered by Government in the near future.

I am certainly none the wiser. It has been seven years since we introduced the Bill which was supported by Fianna Fáil. We were told it would be early in the new year and now we are being told it will be in the near future. As the Minister of State said, the housing commission is ready to bring out its report. I would have thought the Minister would have been working on the wording and date for the referendum on the public ownership of water at same time so that as soon as the report from the housing commission is produced, he could move forward quite quickly on this.

The water services workers have made this a key demand before they make any move over to Irish Water. They want the wording and the date. They want their pay, rostered and regular overtime and allowances red-circled before anything happens. They have made that decision. Unite has rejected the WRC plan and SIPTU has stalled any co-operation with Irish Water regarding the terms of their pay and conditions. I hope the Minister of State can at least say it is imminent. What he has said indicates it is not. All we can do is go out in public with the other right-to-water parties in the Dáil and the unions and make it a big issue again.

The can has been kicked down the road since 2016. We were on Third Stage in 2018 with the Bill we introduced and we are still there after a mass movement on water charges which we all remember clearly. It is the people's will. It is the water services workers' will and it is the will of the Opposition parties who supported the Bill.

I appreciate the Deputy raising this matter and her interest in and commitment to the referendum. As indicated, the Minister is fully committed to supporting the referendum on public ownership of water, and I cannot emphasise that enough. The Minister's preferred approach, as outlined in the Irish Water transformation policy paper, is to bring forward proposals for a referendum on water ownership, in conjunction with the anticipated referendum proposal on housing. This plan remains on course and he will be working with colleagues across the Government to advance both referendum proposals in the near future.

National Asset Management Agency

The Poolbeg strategic development zone, SDZ, is the last major strategic site for residential development in Dublin city. It has the potential to deliver 3,500 homes, including 10% Part V social homes and over 600 affordable homes. For the development to proceed an agreement is required between Dublin City Council, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the developer, the Johnny Ronan group and Lioncor Developments, over the delivery of the affordable homes. Unfortunately, the developer paid significantly over the guide price for the land in question and the latest information we have from it is that the all-in development cost per unit of accommodation could end up being somewhere between €600,000 and €700,000. The problem with that is when you match the cost of the units with Government affordable housing schemes, an agreement cannot be reached. If an agreement cannot be reached, not only can the development not proceed but also the communities of Ringsend and Irishtown could lose these much-needed affordable homes. The National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, retains a 20% stake in the development. The only way the affordable homes can be delivered is if NAMA's 20% stake is transferred to Dublin City Council and is used as part of the negotiation between the council, the developer and the Department to reduce the all-in cost so that hardworking families and singles in that part of the city can get genuinely affordable homes.

I know the Minister of State will not give us good news today because he is here to read the script, and I appreciate that. As well as responding formally to this matter, I ask the Minister of State to take back the message from Deputy Andrews and I, and the communities of that part of the city, that both the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael McGrath, the Minister of State's party colleague, the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, need to talk to NAMA. Given that NAMA will have to dispose of its 20% interest by 2025 anyway, the most logical place to dispose of it is through Dublin City Council. I urge the Minister of State to convey our request for that to happen in order to allow this scheme to develop and proceed.

The glass bottle site has been at the heart of the Ringsend and Irishtown community for generations, and families from the community worked there for generations. Seven years ago, there was an agreement to develop 350 public homes and 550 affordable homes there. Residents in Ringsend are increasingly frustrated that there are still no homes on that site and it does not look like there will be any homes on it for a number of years to come. The flats in Ringsend are already overcrowded. In some instances, there are three generations of families living in small two-bedroom flats. Families who have neurodiverse children are already struggling in overcrowded housing. The flats, in many cases, have chronic dampness and mould, and overcrowding is only adding to this.

From day one the Irish Glass Bottle Housing Action Group has done fantastic work in campaigning to get housing on this site. Along with my colleague, Councillor Daniel Céitinn, I met the housing group last week and it is furious with the delays that have occurred. The prices being talked about are ranging between €600,000 and €700,000, depending on the size of the unit being built. That is far from affordable. The longer it takes to start building these homes, the higher the costs will be because of building inflation. We need to see movement, therefore; it is the least the residents in Ringsend and Irishtown deserve. We need to see an agreement on the price and we also need to know how the Government will make these homes affordable because €500,000, €600,000 or €700,000 is not affordable to ordinary working families. How will the Government bring the price down?

As my colleague Deputy Ó Broin has said, NAMA will be wound down in 2025. We would ask the Government, along with the Irish Glass Bottle Housing Action Group and residents in Ringsend and Irishtown, to ensure that the 20% stake NAMA has in the glass bottle site is given to Dublin City Council. The council can then use that to nudge the affordability of these homes towards something that is realistic for ordinary families.

I thank the Deputies for raising this issue. I wish to advise the Deputies that the Poolbeg west strategic development zone, SDZ, planning scheme includes a requirement for 25% of the residential units delivered in the SDZ to be reserved for social and affordable housing, comprising 10% Part V social housing and 15% affordable housing. NAMA retains a 20% minority interest in a 37.2 acre development site located within the SDZ. A consortium of Ronan Group Real Estate, Oaktree Capital Management and Lioncor Developments owns the controlling 80% stake in the site. The development site has capacity for up to 3,800 residential units, of which 25%, or 950 units, will be social and affordable homes, and approximately 1 million sq. ft of commercial development, as well as educational facilities, public open spaces, civic spaces and other community amenities.

The development of the site is being undertaken by the consortium as controlling shareholders. No development can commence until a commercial agreement is reached with Dublin City Council or the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage on the affordable units. I am advised that planning permission has been granted by Dublin City Council for 894 residential homes on the site. This permission includes a provision for the requisite 25%, as required by An Bord Pleanála’s grant of planning condition for the SDZ. Separate planning applications are currently under consideration by Dublin City Council for an additional 516 residential units, including 129 social and affordable homes, and 495,000 sq. ft of commercial space. Planning applications for later phases of residential development will also be required to provide for 25% social and affordable homes per the planning scheme. In total, it is expected that 950 social and affordable homes will be delivered on the site.

As the Deputies may be aware, section 9 of the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009 provides that NAMA is independent in the performance of its functions and that the Minister has no role in relation to its commercial operations or decisions. Nor is the Minister party to commercial transactions or agreements in which NAMA is engaged. NAMA is progressing its objective of facilitating the development of the site, including the delivery of the social and affordable homes, to achieve the maximum return to the taxpayer. The transfer of NAMA's 20% shareholding to a suitable State body is a matter that the Minister may have to consider in conjunction with NAMA, as the agency winds down by the end of 2025.

I often wonder if Ministers of State did something bad in a previous life that has caused them to be sent in here week after week to read out statements. This issue, in fairness to the Minister of State, is not his brief or portfolio. I thank the Minister of State for the information, which is identical, word for word, to a parliamentary question reply I got two weeks ago. However, having the Minister of State read it out to me rather than having to read it for myself is much more pleasurable.

We are asking the Minister of State to do something simple, and I appreciate that we have to go through this little bit of performance. There is a significant request from ourselves, from a unanimity of councillors representing the local electoral area on a cross-party basis, and from the communities there, on the NAMA stake. This will have to be transferred to a public body and the only way we will get the affordable homes, which is a legal requirement of the SDZ, and get the entire scheme unlocked, is if NAMA's interest is transferred to Dublin City Council. I know that in his reply the Minister of State will not give me the information I am looking for but I ask him to give us an assurance that he will at least pass on, both to the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael McGrath, the need for them to actively consider this.

As has been said, it is important that NAMA transfers its holding to Dublin City Council. Residents from Ringsend and Irishtown living in overcrowded accommodation that is filled with dampness and mould need this and it is necessary to develop a strong community. Housing is a key element to that. It has been seven years since an agreement was reached to develop public housing on this site. We are still waiting, as are residents in Ringsend and Irishtown. That site, as I said, has been a critical part of the community for generations. Families have worked there and hopefully families will live there in the future. There is a concern because of the high cost of €600,000 or €700,000 per unit that the social housing may be delivered off-site. It is also important for the Government to reassure residents that this will not happen.

I thank both of the Deputies for raising this issue. I will reflect the feedback they have provided and what they have stated regarding the community's perspective on this, which is important. As I stated, I have been advised by NAMA that it holds a 20% equity interest in the development site at Poolbeg west SDZ. Under the terms of the shareholder agreement NAMA entered into in 2021, all shareholders, in accordance with an agreed business plan, can be requested to meet their respective capital commitments prorated to their equity interest. Otherwise, the specific terms of the shareholder agreement and the value of such commitments are commercially sensitive. I highlight again for the Deputies that NAMA is progressing its objective of facilitating the development of the former Irish Glass Bottle site, including the delivery of social and affordable homes. The Minister for Finance is satisfied that NAMA has the requisite resources, skills and experience to progress the development at this time. As I mentioned, the transfer of NAMA's 20% shareholding to a suitable State body is a matter the Minister may have to consider in conjunction with NAMA when the agency winds down in 2025.

Barr
Roinn