I welcome the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and his officials. I am sure it will be the first of many meetings we will have in the next few years. I propose that we hear the Minister outline his priorities for the year ahead and then take questions from members of the committee.
Environment and Local Government: Ministerial Presentation.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to meet the committee to discuss my plans and priorities for the coming year. I am conscious that we will have a detailed discussion on my Department's Estimate later in the year and that I will also be bringing legislation to the committee, but it is obviously useful for us to have a more general overview of the key issues which will be on both of our agendas during 2003. The environment and local government brief is a wide one, with some significant challenges and this is well reflected in the committee's work programme. I intend to highlight a number of these and set out briefly how I intend to approach them. Our discussion will also set the scene for the committee's consideration of the detailed statement of strategy for the Department. Work on this has been completed and it will be published shortly.
Enhanced environmental management and protection are key priorities on my agenda for 2003, to take forward the ambitious programme contained in An Agreed Programme for Government. This morning, the Protection of the Environment Bill 2003 has been published. It will be brought before Seanad Éireann next week and I look forward to a constructive debate on it in both Houses, including at this committee, over the coming weeks. The Bill represents a substantial strengthening of our environmental legislation and it will meet a number of important objectives. It will bring our integrated pollution control and waste licensing systems, already among the most advanced in operation in the EU, fully into line with EU legislation. It will amend the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 and the Waste Management Act 1996 to secure better implementation and enforcement. The Bill will also implement commitments in the Government's litter action plan to strengthen the law in relation to littering.
The changes we are making to integrated pollution control licensing reflect both EU requirements and the EPA's experience of more than eight years of licensing. Under the new provisions, for example, we will move to integrated pollution prevention and control, reflecting a heightened emphasis on the prevention and minimisation of environmental problems at source. Energy efficiency will have higher priority, and the EPA will be enabled to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in IPPC licences. Additional activities will become subject to licensing and several improvements will be made to facilitate implementation and enforcement - including increased fines, a "fit and proper person" test for licence applicants and provision for the revocation or suspension of licences.
I know that members share my concern to secure a radical transformation of the way we deal with waste. Firm action is necessary to push forward implementation of the waste management plans adopted last year and firm measures are necessary to intensify enforcement of waste legislation. This Bill, in addition to providing for full compliance with EU legislation, contains a number of amendments reflecting the Government's determination to address conclusively the problems that have beset waste management for many years and to build on the progress that we have recently begun to make. The review, variation or replacement of a waste management plan and the power to make charges for waste services will become executive rather than reserve functions. Local authorities will be empowered to refuse to collect waste where charges remain unpaid. Enforcement will be strengthened in a number of respects.
Importantly, for example, it will no longer be necessary to satisfy a court that an unauthorised activity is causing, or has caused, environmental pollution. Instead, court injunctions against unauthorised waste collection or disposal activity will be facilitated and there will be a presumption, for the purposes of prosecution, that where waste activities are carried on without or in non-compliance with a permit or licence, such activities are deemed likely to cause environmental pollution.
The EPA will be enabled to revoke or suspend a waste licence in the event that the licensee is no longer a "fit and proper person". Powers currently available to local authorities, allowing steps to be taken for the purpose of preventing or remediating environmental pollution, will also be extended to the EPA. The Litter Pollution Act 1997 will be strengthened by the proposed provisions, which increase litter fines, widen local authority powers to make litter by-laws for their functional areas, and impose greater restrictions on advertising material in public place.
We will return to the Bill in considerable detail over the coming term, but I wanted to draw the attention of the committee to a number of key provisions that underpin the Government's determination and mine both to meet our EU obligations and to get tough and stay tough on polluting activity. We will be putting in place an intensified enforcement drive, through the planned office of environmental enforcement, and the Bill will support a number of our objectives in that regard.
Members will be aware that our environmental record overall is good. Significant strides have been made in recent years, notably in reversing the trend towards increasing water pollution, in major water services investment and in improved waste recycling. More remains to be done. Further implementation of the nitrates directive will be undertaken this year. While we have initiated actions that have the potential to deliver 20% of our national climate change target, we need to intensify implementation and I will this year publish a review of the strategy to that end. I will also publish a new national acidification strategy to meet international requirements in respect of a number of air pollutants.
I am giving particular priority to bringing an end to our long-standing problems with the quality of drinking water. As members know, these problems mainly centre around group schemes and can be eliminated by providing disinfection and treatment facilities and ensuring that the schemes are properly operated and managed. New approaches to disinfection and treatment have been researched and piloted and are now being implemented throughout the country. I have committed the necessary resources and the objective is to bring all schemes into compliance with the EU drinking water directive. To ensure that the schemes are well managed, the water services Bill, which I will publish during the year, will include proposals for the licensing by local authorities of all significant group schemes.
Nuclear safety will remain a high priority on my agenda. An Agreed Programme for Government makes clear our opposition to Sellafield and our concerns about the nuclear energy sector as a whole. I will continue to pursue every legal and diplomatic option in seeking to bring about the safe closure of Sellafield. Equally, I will continue to advance the Government's concerns about and objections to nuclear-related activities at all appropriate international forums. I expect to have a determination this spring in our action under the OSPAR Convention. This was initiated by Ireland in June 2001 and concerns the withholding by the UK, on commercial confidentiality grounds, of information that Ireland deems relevant to assessing the economic justification of the Sellafield MOX plant. Our separate proceedings under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, on grounds concerning environmental protection and impact, safety and co-operation, is expected to be heard at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague next June.
This year, I will also be taking forward our position on nuclear-related activities in the international arena, in particular through my participation in an OSPAR ministerial meeting in June, through participation by mine and other relevant Departments at a major nuclear transport conference being held later this year by the International Atomic Energy Agency and through close engagement with the negotiations on the forthcoming nuclear safety package now due for publication by the European Commission. At the recent EU Council of Environment Ministers in December, I joined like-minded colleagues from other countries in issuing a statement emphasising that if a member state chooses to produce energy from nuclear installations at all, this should be carried out to the highest safety level possible and in full compliance with all relevant conventions, standards and legal provisions.
I will now turn to the national spatial strategy. I note from the first item in the work programme that the committee has given this special emphasis in relation to today's meeting. I am pleased that it has done so, because its implementation is one of my main priorities. The strategy has the overall objective of achieving more balanced regional development. It promotes a better spread of opportunities, a better quality of life and better places in which to live. It will do this by consolidating the development of the greater Dublin area, while promoting places in the regions with sufficient scale and critical mass to attract significant investment and job opportunities. The strategy will inform and direct decisions in relation to investment, planning matters and spatial policy over the next 20 years. It sets out how people, services and infrastructure can be brought together so that new opportunities for investment and employment growth will be opened up across the country.
The strategy identifies a national framework of gateways and hubs, which will provide the necessary scale of infrastructure and services to increase the economic attractiveness of the country. The gateways will drive development across the urban and rural areas they influence and support more balanced patterns of national level development. A network of hubs will have a critical strategic role in energising the immediate areas around them by providing strengthened structures for more focused investment around the country.
The spatial strategy emphasises that to achieve balanced regional development, critical mass at gateway and hub level must be complemented by other towns and villages growing to their potential. Under the strategy, towns and villages will better support their local rural and urban populations by becoming the focus for investment, economic activity and housing development. The strategy outlines how rural potential and alternative employment can be developed by building on local strengths in tourism, agriculture, enterprise, local services and land and marine-based natural resources.
On rural housing, a topic of great interest to many of the members, the NSS takes the position that housing is a key requirement to support a good quality of life and a strong economy. How we locate housing relative to other activities like employment, services and transport is critical to good spatial policy and a strong and balanced economy.
The strategy supports sustainable rural settlement. It draws a distinction between rural-generated housing - housing needed within the established rural community by persons working in rural areas or in nearby urban areas - and urban-generated housing - housing, including second homes, in rural locations sought by people living and working in urban areas. The strategy takes the view that, subject to good planning practice on issues such as site location and design, rural-generated housing needs should be accommodated where they arise. In relation to urban-generated housing the NSS takes the view that development driven by cities and towns should take place in their built-up areas or by way of planned extension to the built-up area. However, for those seeking a rural lifestyle while working in a larger city or town, smaller towns and villages can cater for this type of housing demand in a sustainable manner.
The strategy outlines how these policies need to be further developed to respond to the different circumstances in various types of rural areas. We did not want the strategy to be overly prescriptive. It sets out broad principles for rural settlement policy, which will have to be worked out in more detail through the regional planning guidelines and development processes depending on the different circumstances in different areas. In due course, it is intended that the Department of the Environment and Local Government will issue more detailed guidelines on rural housing location to promote best practice on this issue.
I am also giving priority to the effective operation of the planning system in general. Planning applications have increased significantly in recent years in line with the growth in the economy. Planning authorities have responded to this increase by improving their productivity substantially. However, the expansion in the demand for planning permissions has in the short-term stretched the resources of planning authorities and this has led to difficulties, in particular for planning enforcement. Strong and visible enforcement is critical to ensuring that the planning control system works properly and for the benefit of the whole community. A key objective of the Planning and Development Act 2000 was to bring forward strengthened provisions in relation to planning enforcement. These new provisions come into force on 11 March. They include a new streamlined enforcement procedure and greatly increased fines.
I am also concerned about ensuring adequate staffing levels for local authority planning departments. Numerous requests from planning authorities for sanction for additional planning posts, both professional planners and administrative staff, have been approved. Staffing of local authority planning departments has almost doubled in the past four years and has involved significant recruitment of planners from abroad. I am confident that the resources available to the planning system are increasing and will continue to do so over the next number of years as a significantly expanded number of graduate planners become available from educational institutions.
In the area of urban renewal there have been various tax incentive-based schemes - urban and town renewal and living over the shop - run by my Department which are entering a critical phase. The recent budget saw extensions in their deadlines and also some important adjustments to the criteria for the schemes. These schemes are due to terminate at the end of 2004, and I am asking local authorities to intensify their promotion, particularly in relation to the town renewal and living over the shop schemes where take-up to date has been somewhat disappointing. These schemes are an important delivery mechanism for policies outlined in the national spatial strategy and I want to see maximum use of this once-off opportunity to achieve vital urban regeneration objectives in the areas targeted under the schemes. I will shortly be announcing allocations for 2003 under various urban regeneration programmes run by my Department.
The committee's work programme includes a number of important issues under the heading of housing. Our recent economic and population growth suggests that strong demand for housing is set to continue. In meeting this demand, it will be necessary to maintain a high level of new house completions over the coming years. In this way we will seek to bring moderation to the rate of house price increases. Through a range of measures, the Government has promoted increases in the supply of houses. Investment in the servicing of land and ensuring efficiency in its use, through guidelines on residential density, is having an effect.
The year 2002 was the eighth consecutive year of record house completions, with an estimated 57,000 houses completed and an anticipated 30% increase in housing output in Dublin. The figure I had been using up to now was about 55,000, so we are above the anticipated level. The overall objective of the Government is to continue to maintain record levels of output to satisfy the projected housing demand and moderate house price increases. This strategy is working. The changes brought forward in the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2002 will ensure that the prospects for another record level of housing output in 2003 are good.
There has also been a significant moderation in the rate of house price increases, which at their peak in 1998 were rising at some 40% per annum. The first nine months of 2002 saw house price inflation of 3.1 % and 6.6% for new houses in Dublin and nationwide, and 8% and 7.9% for second-hand houses in Dublin and nationwide, when compared with the same period in 2001. It is also clear that demand for social housing has increased in recent years. Addressing this need is one of the key challenges and priorities of this Government. The 2002 assessment of local authority housing need indicates that some 48,413 households are on local authority waiting lists - which is up 23.5% on the last assessment carried out in 1999.
In recent years the Government has focused on introducing a range of better targeted programmes to meet the particular needs of low income groups and those with social housing needs. We will work to ensure that these schemes meet the needs of their target groups and that the strong momentum that has built up under the local authority housing programme is maintained. The voluntary and co-operative sector has an important role to play in the provision of social housing in the State and we must continue to encourage their effective engagement in this sector. The area of affordable housing is one which we would expect to see making a greater contribution in the medium term.
The Government's commitment to meeting the housing needs of disadvantaged and lower income groups is reflected in the level of spending on housing proposed for 2003. While the Exchequer provision for 2003 is down 5%, this largely reflects the non-recurrence in 2003 of a substantial overhang of commitments coming into 2002 on the local authority programme. When account is taken of the non-Exchequer spending, the total capital funding for housing in 2003 is, at €1.7 billion, up almost 7% on that amount provided in 2002. This overall provision will allow local authorities to start more houses in 2003 than in 2002. It will allow for the continued development of the voluntary and co-operative housing sector and for increased numbers of affordable housing. In overall terms, I expect about 12,000 units of social and affordable housing to be provided in 2003 compared to 8,700 units just three years ago. Furthermore, the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2002 will help to ensure continued high levels of housing supply and will be an important means for local authorities to provide social and affordable housing.
This Government is also committed to continuing to modernise and develop the private rented sector, particularly on the basis of the recommendations of the commission report on the sector in 2000. Fiscal reforms have already been implemented in recent Finance Acts, but a core element of the reform programme will be the publication of a private rented sector Bill in the first half of 2003. This will include measures to establish the Private Residential Tenancies Board on a statutory basis and reforms in relation to security of tenure, registration of tenancies, notice to quit periods, rent setting and reviews and dispute resolution. I know members of the committee are as anxious as me to see this Bill.
The private rented sector has a key role to play in meeting housing need alongside home ownership and social housing. The new legislative regime will help it to fulfil this role more effectively, make the sector more attractive to landlords and tenants and, I hope, promote increased long-term investment and professionalism. We will also explore other relevant ways of helping the development of the sector. For example, consideration is being given to developing affordable rented accommodation through public private partnership arrangements. A pilot programme is envisaged, focusing initially on households in need of rental assistance with a view to promoting supply of good standard accommodation and getting better value for State expenditure in this area.
I am giving a high priority to continuing the process of reforming and improving local government. As members know, the 2001 Act was a major milestone in local government law, and it underpins the renewal programme which has been under way since 1997. It was to be implemented on a phased basis - at this stage over 80% of the provisions have been commenced and the remaining provisions will be brought into operation over the coming months. However, we cannot rest on our laurels. We must build on the existing work and continue to improve the framework so that local authorities can operate to the highest standards. To that end, I will be bringing forward a new local government Bill shortly with a view to speedy enactment. This Bill will end dual membership of a local authority and the Oireachtas from 2004, and discontinue plans for the direct election of cathaoirligh of county and city councils. I am satisfied that the rationale for the abolition of the dual mandate is a valid one, although it was not possible to include the provision in the last Bill, and that it now enjoys broadly based support. It will bring significant change to our local authorities, allowing for an influx of fresh blood and, in particular, increase the participation of young people and of women. I believe that this addresses the issues which gave rise to the original proposal for directly elected cathaoirligh, and I take a strong view, as does the Government, that these posts should be filled by people selected by the democratically elected members. We should be consistent in the approach we take at national level and local level.
The local authorities, through the leadership of the county and city development boards, have been delivered at the local level. These boards represent a tremendous opportunity for local government to have an input into local services and to help bring about better co-ordination of these services. In addition, the new local authority community and enterprise section has seen the authorities expand their community development and social inclusion roles. Initiatives such as the local government anti-poverty network, pilot social inclusion units and the community-voluntary fora are cases in point. I want to see local authorities continue to operate in this vein. The present system of local government funding introduced in 1999 has delivered significant additional resources for local government. However, the demands which the local authorities must meet are growing rapidly, particularly because of the ongoing operational and maintenance costs of the new infrastructure we have been building under the national development plan. I have already announced that I am going to have a major study carried out on local authority financing, to help us determine how the changing and emerging demands on local authorities can be met most efficiently and most equitably. This is a matter we are all concerned with given the high standards of implementation facilities that are in place around the country. They have a high current expenditure cost of maintaining them. We will be interested to hear all views when we begin this process.
While I currently have responsibility for all of the functions of Dúchas, this is an interim arrangement. The restructuring of Departments, as announced by the Taoiseach in June, envisaged that the Office of Public Works would be involved in the operational management of the built heritage. This raised the question of how best to allocate the various functions, which have been intertwined under the Dúchas brand between the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the Office of Public Works. Many of the new functions fit well with my Department's long-standing roles in relation to both the natural and built environment, but it is equally true that many are closely akin to the operational areas in which the Office of Public Works has developed great expertise, of which I have first-hand knowledge.
I want to make sure that the functions are allocated in a way that recognises the strengths of both organisations and, to that end, there has been a comprehensive review of the functions by a high-level task force. This work is nearing completion and I expect to be bringing my recommendations back to Government in the next two months.
While a major emphasis this year must be on the review of structures for heritage services, I will also be concentrating on delivery of services in this area. Heritage makes an essential contribution to our quality of life and I am very conscious of our responsibility to protect it and pass it on to future generations.
Regarding the built heritage, I will continue to work particularly through the planning system and the National Monuments Acts to protect sites. I am determined to ensure that a proper balance is found between the needs of conservation and the need for development so that all important sites are protected or, where this is not practical, that the archaeology is resolved and properly recorded before development takes place. I will also continue to promote the initiative to agree codes of practice between Dúchas, the heritage service of the Department of the Environment and Local Government, and major development agencies, both in the public and private sectors.
Protection is achieved through knowledge and understanding and I intend to place more emphasis on increasing awareness of the richness of our heritage, especially through the completion and publication of the interim county surveys of the national inventory of architectural heritage and publication of further volumes of the archaeological survey, as well as through events such as heritage week. I also propose to develop a new programme to increase awareness of built heritage among farmers, who are major custodians of heritage on their lands.
Regarding natural heritage, I am pleased we will have virtually completed the programme of designation of special areas of conservation under the European habitats directive next month when we publish our proposals for salmon rivers and some other outstanding sites. All that will then remain to be done will be the designation of some marine sites and minor boundary adjustments, reflecting further information. Some further special protection areas for birds will need to be designated to protect dispersed species, such as hen harriers, and work will be done on these this year. I also plan to continue work on formal designation of natural heritage areas. Proposals for a compensation scheme for farmers have been submitted to the European Commission and I expect to finalise them this year. Monitoring and protection of sites and species will continue.
I have tried to touch on some of the key challenges and priorities for the coming year. The brief, of course, is very wide, and this is reflected in the breadth of the committee's work programme. The Chairman will be well aware that we will be addressing many other issues of great importance during the year. I look forward to working with the committee and one can be assured that I will value its constructive input into that process.
I have some questions and I felt that this would be the most effective forum for me in which to ask them. I thank the Minister for coming before the committee. One of the reasons he came is that some of us have concerns about the electronic voting system, to which I will allude later.
One of the provisions in the Protection of the Environment Bill 2003 is to introduce explicit new powers for local authorities to make charging for waste services an executive function. I have not read the Bill yet as I have just received a copy, but I see this provision as a serious erosion of the rights of elected members. I know there was great pressure on local authorities this year to increase charges as a result of the shortfall in Department funding. Many of us had to impose fairly hefty increases, but it was a decision made by the members in a democratic way. Is the removal of power from the members of local authorities correct? Will managers have an absolute right to impose charges as they see fit? If so, it makes a mockery of the reform of local government and I flag my party's opposition to it.
In terms of local government reform and getting good people into local authorities, the banning of the dual mandate will mean that many experienced people will be leaving. I was amused by the statement that it has widespread support and I wonder what Deputy Healy-Rae thinks about it.
We will be attempting to attract new people into local authorities over the next 18 months and this provision is a kick in the teeth for local democracy. Will the Minister elaborate on the matter in spite of the fact that we will be discussing it in the Seanad and Dáil in the coming weeks?
Reference was not made to the announcement in recent weeks in respect of negotiations that are taking place with regard to a new national wage agreement or new national understanding. It was announced that there will be a huge increase in the development of affordable housing. How does the Minister intend to deal with that provision?
I understand that the electronic security company Zerflow Holdings submitted a report to the Minister's Department which raised concerns about the security of the electronic voting machines. I have not seen it but I believe that it stated the machines were not tamper-proof. I raised this on the Adjournment and asked that the report be published. I also asked why the electronic voting system was used in the general election despite the reservations of the company. Were the problems identified by Zerflow resolved before the machines were used in the general election?
In the response I got when I raised the matter, it was implied that the machines that were used will no longer be used and that a new, improved version will be used in future elections. Has the Minister carried out further assessments of the security of the system? I would like him to produce a report on the matter. I know that we will get a copy of the Zerflow report through the secretariat. It is unacceptable that we should have had to wait so long to obtain a copy, given that it deals with the most fundamental issue in our democracy - the security of our voting system.
In the event of the electronic voting system being used in all constituencies in all areas, I want an assurance from the Minister that there will not be a closing down of polling booths in rural areas and a pooling of centres, that the present number will be maintained and that it will not be made more difficult for people to vote.
How does the Minister propose to deal with the crisis arising in all local authority areas? We read that there will be a major shortfall in the Cork County Council area brought about by insufficient funding to deal with benchmarking and the wage agreements. How does the Minister intend to help local authorities to meet their obligations or will he just force them to pass on charges to the public? Is the provision in the Protection of the Environment Bill 2003 one of the mechanisms that will be used to screw the public as a result of local authorities not getting the funding they require to carry out their obligations? Cork County Council said last Monday that it will run out of funding for certain services which it will not be able to provide by July. How does the Minister intend to deal with that crisis?
I join Deputy Allen in welcoming the Minister and his officials to the committee. It is the Minister's first appearance before the joint committee, which is a pity considering that it is seven or eight months since he took office. We should have had a meeting of this kind last July, but, of course, the committee did not exist then. That says much about the way the Government deals with the parliamentary process and the committee system, which is not to criticise the Minister. It is, rather, to criticise the fact that committees were not established when they should have been, at the beginning of the life of the Dáil.
I welcome the Minister and accept that his is a wide-ranging brief. While he could not address every single area covered by his portfolio in the time available to him, I was surprised that two matters were not referred to in his presentation. The first of the matters was climate change, for which the Minister has lead responsibility and the second was the area of environmental taxes, which I understand are the subject of discussions at ECOFIN where considerable progress has been made. It would be interesting to know what the implications are in terms of our taxation regime.
In the past few weeks there have been reports that the talks for a new partnership agreement contained a major housing initiative. The president of ICTU has stated publicly that 10,000 housing units are to be provided under that initiative. I see the Minister shaking his head, which puts him on the side of the Department of Finance which stated that this was not the position. It would be useful if the Minister were to tell the committee what exactly are the details of the initiative. What additional housing is to be provided and where does the initiative differ from the existing affordable housing scheme? Who will be responsible for constructing the housing? The Minister's statement indicated that the Government's present policy approach to housing schemes will continue. There seems to be a degree of satisfaction from the Minister's perspective at how the approach is working, but it is misguided. I would have expected to hear the word "change" coming through. There is a need to change housing policy. House prices are continuing to rise and the rate of increase is accelerating again.
I would be interested to know if it is still Government policy that the principal form of house tenure should be home ownership. I would like the Minister to address that matter specifically. A redecoration of the principle used to be one of the first statements of any Minister in the past. Home ownership is mentioned in the Minister's script, but this time as an aside. If home ownership is still Government policy, how are we to address the problem that two thirds of newly formed households in our local authority area cannot afford to buy their own home? That statistic was quoted by the director of planning in my local authority at a meeting the other evening. One building society is advertising its belief that 70% of newly formed households can no longer afford to buy a home. On David McWilliams's excellent radio programme this morning, I listened to an item in which estate agents stated that one out of every four people using their office in Carlow town is a Dublin commuter. They have to travel 80 km from Dublin in order to buy a home. This indicates that housing policy is not working and that there is a need to change it. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about prospects for a change of direction in the context of the failed housing policies we have seen up to now.
I agree with what Deputy Allen said about the Minister's plans to provide county managers with the power to make, review and vary existing waste management plans as well as to set charges for waste services. This is to be done through the Protection of the Environment Bill. We need a clear statement from the Minister setting out the Government's position on waste policy to underpin these proposals. Taking all waste management powers completely away from democratically elected local representatives and giving them to county managers means, in effect, that the Minister is taking responsibility for policy. Therefore, we need to know what the policy is. Are we taking the incineration option? There is no point in saying that the decision is to be left to regional waste management plans and local authorities when he is taking power away from them. If he takes the power away, the Minister is taking responsibility for policy and he should tell us what that policy is. These proposals are about more than the occasional difficulty which arises in a couple of local authorities each year with regard to the adoption of their annual Estimates. Removal of the power to make charges for waste management represents the thin end of some kind of a waste policy wedge, the details of which we are entitled to know.
I disagree with the Minister when he says that the present system of local government funding which was introduced in 1999 has delivered significant additional resources. The fact is that local government is in serious financial difficulties. Local authorities have been given additional responsibilities without the resources they need to meet them. No resources have been provided in the current year for benchmarking, the establishment of which did not involve local authorities. No additional resources have been provided in relation to waste management. The Exchequer contribution to the local government fund is frozen and the allocation for non-national roads, which the Minister announced a couple of days ago, has actually been reduced and is down €5 million on what it was last year. I have the documents here.
It has gone from €435 million to €434 million.
It has been reduced from €438 million to €433 million. I have the announcement which was made by the Minister's predecessor in January of last year. He gave the figure of €438.46 million and this year the Minister, Deputy Cullen, announced a figure of €433.9 million. That was in a year in which motor taxation increased. The Minister said he will have a major study carried out on local authority financing. Are local authorities going to be involved and when is the report likely to issue?
There is a contradiction at the heart of the national spatial strategy. The idea is that it will achieve a better quality of life for all by consolidating the development of the greater Dublin area while promoting places in the regions with sufficient scale and critical mass. As I recall, the rate of growth projected for the greater Dublin area is significantly higher than the rate projected for the regions.
The strategy appears to have been an each way bet by on one hand, allowing for the continued growth and sprawl of the greater Dublin area, while, on the other, making all the necessary nods in the direction of regional development and the development of gateways, etc. Will the Minister indicate how the strategy will be squared with the population census returns, which show significant population decline in the developed heart of Dublin city and in the old city suburbs while there is a huge population increase in the outer sprawls around the cities - in counties Louth, Meath and Kildare - with the pattern replicated in Cork, Galway and elsewhere?
How will the national spatial strategy work? The Minister said the gateways will drive development across urban and rural areas while the hubs will have a strategic and critical role in energising the immediate areas. How will this happen? Is it envisaged that local government structures will be changed to correspond to the gateways, hubs and settlement patterns identified in the strategy and which are projected to continue developing? Who will be responsible for the strategy?
On the question of electronic voting, if President Mugabe held his presidential election using our electronic voting system——
He would be long gone.
The world would say it was not free or fair and every United Nations inspector would agree. We cannot have an electoral system that is not transparent and about the technical integrity of which serious concerns have been expressed. I ask the Minister not to proceed any further with his plans for electronic voting and not to use it in future elections until such time as the system has been properly examined and there is public confidence in its operation. I do not have confidence in the current electronic voting system and we should not use one that does not win the confidence of public representatives, candidates or the electorate.
A number of issues have been raised by Deputy Allen and Deputy Gilmore and I call on the Minister to reply.
Would it not more fair to let all Members speak before the Minister replies?
No. We will proceed in the way I have outlined as many questions have been raised.
I thank both Deputies for their comprehensive questions. They have a detailed knowledge of the issues, which I welcome. The core principle of waste management is that the polluter pays. Those who create the waste should pay for its disposal. It is a simple principle, yet not one local authority has implemented it. The one closest to full implementation is that in my constituency of Waterford. From a commercial and industrial point of view, we are fast approaching compliance with the principle. The real cost of disposing of waste per household is, on average, €11, but there is not a council in the country that is near that figure.
Recycling is the core of what we are trying to achieve in terms of dealing with waste management. Given the volumes involved, we can ensure that between 40 % and 50% of the total waste is recycled.
Will the Minister clarify the figure of €11 per household?
It is €11 per collection. Approximately one third of the country deals with segregated waste by household collection, something that is not sufficiently acknowledged. I commend many local authorities which are making enormous strides in this area. We are providing them with the resources. I announced new resources before Christmas and in the coming week or two I will announce substantial additional resources for local authorities to assist them in the challenges they face.
There are four elements to dealing with waste. The first is prevention. The plastic bags initiative is one example and there are many others, some of which will be announced in the next few weeks. I must discuss the matter with the different parties involved who use some of the items which I consider should be removed from the waste cycle. When the Secretary General and I consider the removal of particular items, it often arises that we are told their use is legal under European Union law.
The second element is recycling, which is the core bedrock of waste management. Considerable resources are going to create recycling facilities. I accept that we do not have sufficient facilities but we are making enormous strides in the public and private sectors.
Two other elements remain, one of which is landfilling. Whereas heretofore in Ireland we landfilled almost 100% of waste, under the new structure less than 20% should be landfilled. This will leave about 20%, for which no country in the Western world has found a solution. That will have to be dealt with by thermal treatment, incineration or call it what you like. These are the four elements.
These elements have formed the basis of every one of the regional waste management plans that have been adopted. Some, unfortunately, had to be adopted by city or county managers when the members, who had informed me that they would support them, did not do so. I find this very disappointing.
That is because some of your own, Minister——
I did not point the finger in any specific direction. I made the point that the decisions were disappointing. I did not point the finger at Deputy Allen.
In the vote in Cork, the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, encouraged his own local councillors to oppose the measure.
We have these plans in place. Very shortly I will have them amalgamated into one national blueprint, as I said I would last year, so that everyone, in the public and private sectors and in their homes, will be able to understand what we are going to put in place.
In recent months I have been very heartened. The amount of interest nationally and internationally in providing solutions to waste management is substantial. The companies which are interested in this area seem to have the capacity, resources and international experience to deliver the solutions. I expect the private sector can deliver the vast bulk of the cost. I do not see the taxpayer as the core element of the cost of providing the facilities. It is quite within the capacity of the private sector to do so and I believe it will. There will be elements of private sector, public sector and combinations of the two.
I would prefer not to have had to go the route I have taken in the EPA Bill. However, it is evident to me, and to everyone in this room whether we would admit it or not, that we have been far too slow to bite the bullet regarding this problem. We have a serious problem despite the tremendous efforts that have been made and the gains we have made. We must increase our efforts substantially. We all know what needs to be done. I am not looking for more reports or committees and I do not need to talk to anyone else, nationally or internationally. The facts are clear and the solutions provide themselves. This is what underpins what I am doing in the EPA Bill. I want the Bill implemented and I know many councillors throughout the country will be delighted that they will not have to sit at fraught council meetings on this subject.
It is worth bearing in mind that the reserve function of the estimates is the ultimate factor with regard to local authorities. It would be wrong to suggest that it does not come within the broad principle of councillors' responsibilities. Of course it does. The measure is not a negation or an undermining of the absolute bedrock of local government, which is the reserved function of local authority members. I have made my decision very clear and I intend to proceed as quickly as possible in this area.
I commend the local authorities and the members who have the foresight to put reasonable costs under their waste systems and by so doing to provide segregated waste collection systems. When enough of them are in place I will move to charging by weight, thereby incentivising households to recycle. The more a household recycles the less it will pay for waste collection. This will not be an extra charge on top of what people are paying at the moment, as some people have tried to portray it. It will be a radical change in the system. If a household recycles its waste properly there will be very little left to be taken away and the household's cost will be very low. This is not rocket science and we do not have to reinvent the wheel. We know from other countries, such as the Scandinavian countries which are the most environmentally progressive in the world, that this is how it is done. There is no mystery and we should simply get on with things.
There are 365 incinerators operating in Europe at the moment, the same number as days in the year, and the number is increasing. Some of the older incinerators are being taken out, as standards have risen. Ireland is lucky in coming to the problem at this point because standards are now so high that the type of facility we will have in Ireland will be state of the art.
Will we have 366 next year? It is a leap year.
No, we will not. We have 11 incinerators in the country at the moment. Everyone ignores that fact that these exist and are attached to specific industries throughout the country. We do not have them for dealing with broad based domestic waste. I appeal to Deputies on all sides of the House to treat this issue positively. I know this is a politically difficult issue but we have a problem and the solutions to it are obvious. No one has suggested other alternatives to me. They do not exist.
Housing is a significant issue and a high priority for the Government, me and the Minister of State. We must deal with facts rather than fiction regarding this issue. The figure for delivery in 2002 is 57,000 units. That is probably the highest delivery of housing in the world today. We are delivering more housing for a population of four million than the UK is for a population of seven million. I have always believed that the key to resolution of the housing crisis is supply. Lack of supply in the mid-1990s coupled with a substantial expanding economy and a growing young population caused a massive problem. There is no question about that although we can argue about whether the State or the industry responded quickly enough.
The real difficulty now is the cost of land and this worries me greatly. Land prices are crazy in a country where we seem to have plenty of land. We do not have a scarcity of land and yet we have an explosion in land costs. It is clear that people's earning capacity is not infinite. In the past ten years people saw massive changes in their net income because of massive reductions in tax coupled with increases in salary but that is not going to continue to be the case in the future. The banks, building societies, developers and builders will have to understand this. We are at a point where people, no matter what they do and even if there are three people working in a household, cannot afford the prices being asked. Inflation figures indicate this. The figures for Dublin and the rest of the country show a dramatic downturn in the construction inflation which raced ahead of prices in the past number of years.
We now have a level which is at maximum capacity. The construction industry is now at its maximum capacity of delivery within the system. We must maintain a delivery level of more than 50,000 for the next ten years within the marketplace. That is my objective.
Deputy Gilmore asked a fair question. I will cite the Government's housing strategy. The strategy aims to enable every household to have an available and affordable dwelling of good quality suited to its needs in a good environment and, as far as possible, at the tenure of its choice. The Deputy will accept that Irish society is changing along with many other societies. I made this point very guardedly that I happen to believe that the best type of society, particularly at the weaker end, is where there is some type of home ownership involved in the property. It leads to greater stability within the home and the community and a greater sense of belonging, pride and development. I come from that perspective and I believe in it.
There are choices because of the different ways that stability existed in the past. There is no longer a prerequisite in getting married because people live together. All these issues have changed the way people live. There is greater mobility in society than in the past. We need a segment within the market that has a good quality rented sector and there is no question about that. Our buoyancy in that area is about 12%. I have said this to Deputy Gilmore in the past and he used it strongly against me, rather unfairly, but I understand the reason. Given the way Irish society is and looking at international norms, that is still too low. I would like to see it higher because it will help to keep prices down in the rented sector and it will help with mobility and flexibility and the choices people want. People want choices at different levels and different situations to suit their lifestyles. In a broad sense we have got to be more realistic.
I welcome what has been said by the social partners. I welcome their focusing on housing and I await the final pronouncements on the issue. It would be unreasonable of me if I did not suggest caution. I am still not sure from where the figure of 10,000 extra houses came. I do not know if anybody can put his or her hand up and say he or she said it and in what context. We are almost at capacity level on what the industry can deliver. What I do not want is a shift of focus. I genuinely believe with the changes made to the voluntary sector in the planning Bill, where the voluntary sector is now into developing home ownership systems, that it will greatly enhance affordable housing. As a result of the changes in the planning Act there will be more delivery this year and in future years in voluntary, social and affordable housing.
An interesting point is being made in regard to the development of State properties and State lands. The underpinning issue of what has emerged from the social partnership talks is that we should look at the State land bank, where it is and what it offers. I do not know if we have the answers to those questions and I do not want to lose focus on keeping the pressure on the developers because I want product delivered. I want physical, social and affordable houses delivered. I do not want anyone looking in another direction away from that and I want it based on the social integration policies that exist at local authority level. That is fundamentally important. If we can develop another stock or another way that is at a good cost to the State and perhaps creates higher volume by using some State properties, that remains to be seen and I would be open to it. I am pleased everybody is still engaged in this issue but we should not forget what we have achieved. It has taken a long time to reach with local authorities, developers and builders the figure of 57,000. That about 12,000 units is being delivered within the mix of social and affordable housing is phenomenal by any standard, Irish or international. It is not enough and I am not pretending it is the solution, but it is having an enormous impact.
On the issue of electronic voting I do not accept what the Deputies say. I do not know if they really mean what they say. It was a subsidiary report and had nothing to do with the software. What the individuals did for some strange reason——
We have not seen the report so we have to assume——
It was not a question of the software at all——
They——
——it was taking extreme views. Suppose, for example, a group of people walked into a polling station and began to interfere with a machine. Many people could walk into a polling station and interfere with the ballot boxes as they are at present. What would one do? There was no question of the integrity of the software. It has been piloted and tested. The reason we are improving the system is that when my predecessor introduced it, it was looked at and we also asked the public, who expressed enormous satisfaction with it in terms of its user friendliness aspect. A couple of points were made about the size of the buttons, the quality of the lighting, etc. As a result we have developed the system even further. It is the hope that it will come into play for the entire country next year for the local and European elections. There is no question that the integrity of the electronic voting system is far more secure.
We have to take the Minister's word for that. We would like to see the evidence and we would like to see the report and the expert analysis and evaluation that has been done on the security of the system. I ask the Minister to lay it before the joint committee.
I would welcome the opportunity to come back to the joint committee to discuss that issue in greater detail. I will come back to the joint committee on that basis. I have no difficulty with this issue. I believe in it, I believe it worked and I believe it worked extraordinarily well. I have no doubt about that. I know some people in the media are concerned about its speed and efficiency. It causes difficulties for them but we will look at that issue. Politicians, and I am one, need more information. The counts should be done count by count as is traditional. I do not necessarily agree with previous advice that one cannot have some kind of tally figures available. That is possible. I am looking at that issue because it is traditional that we have tally figures. The system should have the capacity to do that. There are legal implications for some of it but I do not necessarily accept all of them. It is an issue to which we shall return. We are developing the next generation of electronic voting machines, robots, about 7,000 of them. We will upgrade those we have but effectively they will be new in terms of what they will deliver for the elections next year and we will come back and discuss the matter with the joint committee. On the issue of polling stations——
They will have to be upgraded if those used already——
It is very simple.
We are not concerned with anything else, just the security issue, and the Minister is saying he is upgrading. Therefore, upgrading implies that improvements were required.
It does not mean that.
It does not.
I think it does. I would like to see the report on the evaluations that were done solely on the security.
The Deputy will accept we live in an age where technology is developing at a fast pace. My job is to ensure the people get the best available technology at all times for everything we provide here and technology is developing. What I was speaking about specifically in regard to the machines was a comment on the quality of the lighting of the buttons when people vote. That was an issue - that they could be in different colours. These are subjective things. Some people said if there was a purple light under it instead of a white light one could see it better. Some people might like purple light while some might like white light.
The Minister is diminishing the concern——
The Deputy is overstating an issue.
——because the question is primarily about security.
The issue on tampering was that people could walk into a polling booth, take the key and interfere with the machine. Was that not the case with manual voting - that somebody could go in and rob the box and go out the door with it?
What if there was a hooky presiding officer?
It could be——
It is impossible.
If there was a hooky presiding officer?
All the Minister——
That is the same as it has always been. The Deputy will agree there is co-operation and great integrity among the polling officers. The Deputy asked another question about polling stations. As he is aware the determination of the polling stations is not a function of the Minister at central level. It is a function of the local returning officer to ensure that a sufficient number of polling stations with good accessibility are available. I would not like to see electronic voting being introduced to reduce substantially the number of polling stations. It is vital for rural areas that such facilities are provided. These machines are, however, very accessible and do not cause difficulty in terms of travelling to locations.
Will the Minister make available the reports and assessments on the security aspect?
Yes. I will return to the committee in respect of that matter.
Both Deputies referred to a shortfall in local authority funding as a result of benchmarking. I accept that this is an issue, but we need only consider the level of funding of which local authorities are currently in receipt. I am not making a political point; all political parties over the years have been to the fore in trying to develop local government. Deputy Howlin, my colleague in the south-east, was very much in the same mould as I in terms of addressing these issues.
We have hugely increased resources to local government and there is no comparison to previous years. I, and people who know the local government system, recognise that as we have brought in new directives - which are wonderful, important and have set the bar higher - huge cost implications have emerged. These issues must be addressed. The public has a right to know the real position. As politicians, we have a responsibility to carry out that sort of assessment.
There is a possibility of a number of things being delivered centrally by various Departments - one of my colleagues in Cabinet referred to one such issue lately - which may be more appropriate to local government, but I have an open mind on the matter. I do not want to be drawn into the debate and to say specific things. The danger is that if I say X, Y or Z, they will then become the issues and I do not want that to happen. I want people from the local government structure, in addition to those at national and international level, to be involved in this process. It will build on what my predecessor has done. It is time we gave careful consideration to this matter.
We have reduced the national Exchequer tax base substantially - and for good reason - to a level which, in terms of the personal rate, is probably the lowest in Europe. That is wonderful, but there are other pressures in the system of local government. If one genuinely believes in local government, one must look at its capacity for revenue, responsibility, decision-making and control over its own resources in a real way. People should remember that a high level of resources are allocated to local government and there is the capacity for local authorities to make decisions without any reference to central government. Like all Ministers, I have had to look at the resources to see how we meet these costs going forward. Local authorities will have to look at the issues and the implications of those as we go forward. I think I have covered as much as I can.
I am sure members will inform the Minister if he has not done so.
I refer to one figure, namely, that of €11 per collection for waste.
I am referred to a figure of €11 per household.
Yes, for waste. There are 52 collections per year. That amounts to €572. Add to that figure, the collection of green bins once a month which is another €130. Is the Minister talking about allowing county managers impose a charge of between €600 and €700 per household for waste collection?
The Deputy did not listen to what I said. My comments are being taken out of context. If we do not engage in recycling and proceed to put all waste into landfills, then what the Deputy has said would be correct. However, I believe it does not have to be that way.
How many people recycle?
One third of households throughout the country are involved in segregating their waste. Some local authorities will not bite the bullet because their councillors will not support anything to do with waste.
This comes to between €600 and €700.
It does not. Deputy Gilmore is again being typically clever in trying to present something in a way which——
I am not.
The Deputy asked me a direct question, namely, to outline how I see the position vis-à-vis waste developing. I have been up front, honest and fair. The Deputy should recognise that what I emphasised was that I would change the system to a weight-based model. The basis of that will be to encourage people to recycle more, thereby substantially reducing their costs if they become involved in recycling. That is how it has worked in countries which are the most progressive in the delivery of waste systems and I intend to do that. The Deputy has highlighted a key point by saying that if we do nothing, we will end with what he outlined. I said I have a strategy which, in fairness, most local authorities are beginning to implement. We need to increase the pace in that regard. There are solutions which will be beneficial to everybody if we do that.
I welcome the Minister. Given that there are several crises ongoing under his watch, certainly in housing and waste management, I feel a sense of bewilderment about the fact that it has taken eight months for him to come before the committee.
That is not my fault. As Deputy Gilmore acknowledged, I attended as soon as an invite was issued. The Deputy is talking to a Minister who has never had a problem appearing before a committee.
We made the request to meet the Minister last month.
I am perturbed it took so long for the committees to be formed in the first instance. I was unable to have any hand or part in that process.
I wish to deal with housing, waste, climate change and the national spatial strategy. In regard to the housing crisis, which affects so many households, will the Minister make any moves to break up the cartel which controls the supply of land within the greater Dublin area? A small group of wealthy individuals and companies effectively control the supply and release of housing in Dublin. I hope the Minister will take steps to break up that cartel because, in recent years, the crisis facing people in Dublin who wish to be provided with housing has been exacerbated by the tight control over the release of land.
Will the Minister take practical steps in terms of State and institutionally owned lands? There is remarkable under-use of lands, not only those owned by institutions, such as the churches, but also by the State, particularly the Department of Defence. It seems untenable that the Department of Defence owns many Army barracks in the greater Dublin area which are significantly under-used. The barracks in Rathmines, for example, occupies 50 to 60 acres. That could provide housing for tens of thousands of people. I know there was an aborted attempt to sell Clancy Barracks at Heuston Station, but there are at least four Army barracks in Dublin which are significantly under used. Perhaps the Minister will look carefully at that suggestion and also at other Departments to examine what lands they might have which are surplus to capacity and which could be used to make a significant move towards addressing the housing crisis.
The second issue, to which Deputy Gilmore also referred, is the "greying" suburbs. There is growing under-use of existing housing, typically where children have left home, where the parents are not getting any younger and where perhaps a widow or a widower is left with a three or four bedroom house. I hope the Minister will look at ways and means of releasing that housing supply. We suggest that he might not apply stamp duty to an older couple or individual trading down to a smaller house. This would bring on stream a great deal of under-used housing. If one looks at the inner and outer suburbs of the Dublin, one will discover that schools are empty or are experiencing reduced enrolment. There seems to be a lack of mapping the resources with what is available. I hope the Minister will be able to address that issue.
With regard to waste, I see from the publication of the Protection of the Environment Bill that the Minister is effectively providing a charter for incineration. I am saddened that the Minister is copper-fastening the democratic deficit in local government by giving the manager full authority over making a waste management plan. More power should be given to councillors but the Minister is going against that idea and is following the line of his predecessors. The centralising of power at ministerial and county manager level is a retrograde step, as outlined in the seminal Barrington report on local government many years ago.
Ten years and nothing happened.
The Minister should grant that power at local level.
Back to that——
The Minister is taking democracy away from the local level.
Popular decisions will not be made.
The Minister should also make available sufficient resources for local authorities to address the crisis in unauthorised and illegal dumping, particularly in counties like Wicklow where the county manager is saying he does not have the resources to address the issue. We are seeing unauthorised dumps there, literally within eyesight of council offices. The Minister should make available both the staff and financial resources to address unauthorised and illegal dumping, particularly in the counties around Dublin where this issue has come to a head.
Moving on to the issue of climate change, one of the good things in the Protection of the Environment Bill is that the Minister is defining greenhouse gases. There seems to be much more clarity there than in the Minister's discussion on RTE's "Morning Ireland" programme a few weeks ago. I am delighted to see there is a crispness within the Bill on defining greenhouse gases. I am also glad they will be addressed by integrated pollution control licences. However, on the issue of climate change we are going off the scale in terms of this country's own emissions. I am not sure if it was the Minister or his staff who wrote that piece of "Yes Minister speak" to the effect that we have initiated actions that have the potential to deliver 20% of our national climate change target. The reality, as the Minister knows, is that emissions are continuing to rise blatantly beyond what we agreed to in the Kyoto Protocol. I am seeking evidence that the Minister is actually taking effective action to stabilise and reduce our climate change emissions. I do not see evidence of that while the Minister's colleague is closing down railway lines. When the Minister addressed his local council he stated that the closure of rail lines would assist in getting funding for road developments. That goes against the grain.
That is a misquote and the Deputy knows it.
I would be happy to forward the actual quotation to the Minister. The reality, however, is that rail lines are being closed and the Minister is building more motorways which goes completely against the grain of any coherent attempt to address climate change within the transportation sector.
Wearing both a political hat and a professional one as a town planner, I see the national spatial strategy as a fudge. The strategy is not coherent and was massively diluted by whatever kind of intervention happened to it along the way. In his speech, the Minister talked about consolidating the greater Dublin area, but he is not taking practical steps to achieve this. He is not using the national spatial strategy to control development and the suburban sprawl of Dublin is continuing out into Kildare, Meath, Wicklow and other counties. I am awaiting coherent steps to limit the suburban sprawl that is occurring around major towns and cities.
The Minister's predecessor talked about reviving the rail line to Navan - an idea which was discussed up to ten years ago - yet nothing has happened in that regard. I do not see any sign of a rail line being provided to Navan to provide a sustainable transportation link from that growing town to the Dublin metropolitan area. Mr. Colin Buchanan, who wrote the seminal report on traffic in towns and who addressed spatial strategy issues some 30 years ago, would not be pleased with the strategy that has been announced. It has been too diluted by the addition of too many centres, hubs and nodes.
Will the Green Party make clear which gateways and hubs it would not support?
We have done so and the Minister will find it on our website and in our policy documents.
I would appreciate that.
We called first and foremost for a national rail network linking the Border, midlands and western region.
Will the Deputy tell me which designated gateways he does not want?
The Minister can find them on the Green Party's website.
No. The Deputy should tell me which ones, here before the committee. He should tell me which areas he does not want to have hub status.
I think six towns or cities, in all, were identified and by diluting it down to dozens of centres the Minister is completely watering down the good attempts that were made towards a national spatial strategy.
There are four new gateways. The Deputy should tell me which ones do not merit gateway status. He should tell me.
I would be happy to have a detailed debate with the Minister on the national spatial strategy.
It is typical old Green Party nonsense. It goes on all the time. It is pie in the sky.
I ask the Minister to withdraw that remark, Chairman.
I will not withdraw it. The Deputy should tell me the gateways. I have asked him a question.
Chairman, the Minister has talked about Green Party nonsense.
Which of the four new gateways does the Deputy not want to have gateway status?
I ask you, Chairman, to ask the Minister to withdraw that remark.
The Minister should allow the Deputy to conclude.
The Minister referred to nonsense from my party - I ask him to withdraw that remark.
The Deputy will not answer the question.
I ask the Minister to withdraw that remark.
I will not withdraw the remark, Chairman. If the Deputy answers the question, I will withdraw the remark. I have asked him which of the four new gateways would he like to have withdrawn.
The Minister should withdraw the remark.
I will withdraw the remark then.
Fair enough.
I am sorry to interrupt that exchange between the Deputy and the Minister but I have a few questions I wish to ask as a result of the Minister's address. The Minister stated: "Firm action is necessary to push forward implementation of the waste management plans adopted last year." I want clarification of that. Does it mean that all the regional waste management plans will now be implemented as adopted, despite any efforts of the local authorities concerned to reduce it? I am taking the case of Galway with which I am most familiar. We have reduced our dependence on landfill by over 55% in Galway city. Does the Minister's statement mean that the waste management plans, as adopted by the managers as a result of the authority being taken from the members - and in some cases where the members' legitimate adoption of waste management plans were overruled - and which include incineration for each region, will proceed?
On the national spatial strategy and planning the Minister stated:
On rural housing, a topic of great interest to many of the members, the NSS takes the position that housing is a key requirement to support a good quality of life and a strong economy. How we locate housing relative to other activities like employment, services and transport is critical to good spatial policy and a strong and balanced economy.
The strategy supports sustainable rural settlement. It draws a distinction between rural-generated housing - housing needed within the established rural community by persons working in rural areas or in nearby urban areas - and urban-generated housing ^ housing, including second homes, in rural locations sought by people living and working in urban areas.
They are fine words but all of that depends on what is adopted in the county development plan. It also depends on the interpretation of the plan. Only last week, I dealt with a case in my own local authority involving a couple living in Galway city. Both were working in a region of Connemara, 35 to 40 miles from Galway city, and they applied for a rural house in the area in which they were working on the home farm of one of them.
They are changing that, Deputy.
Hold on for a second. The application was refused on the grounds that they had a house in Galway city and so they were unable to establish a housing need. They now have to drive 35 to 40 miles to work, and back, every day. Beside that, the national school in which they had enrolled their three children now has 12 pupils. If it drops below that enrolment level next year the school will lose a teacher. The policy that is being implemented by the local authority is different from what the Minister said. I would like that message to go out to the local authorities.
The Minister dealt with the slow take-up in accommodation over shops. The number of areas each local authority, including Galway City Council, was allowed to designate as living over the shop areas was limited. Will consideration be given to extending the areas suggested at the time because some of them did not take up the generous offer included in the scheme? There is a great deal of space in Galway city where proper accommodation could be developed under the scheme. Will the Minister consider looking at extensions to the areas designated two or three years ago as being suitable for living over the shop premises? I will communicate further with the Minister on this matter at a later date, I do not want to go into detail about it here.
The Minister referred to the significant changes the Government will make in abolishing the dual mandate, which will allow an influx of fresh new blood into local authorities. I would like to alert him to something I noticed last week when we all had to fill up declaration forms which are much more severe than the declaration forms for Deputies, etc. Anyone entering local government would have serious reservations because of the ministerial regulations introduced following the introduction of the Local Government Bill 2001. These oblige local authority members - perhaps it is justified in some instances to have separate bank accounts for fundraising activities - to declare all or any interest in a property anywhere in the State. This now becomes a public record - unlike the declaration of landlords and so on - and it includes any interest by any member of the family. It includes children, spouses, children of partners and people one might not know existed. This is a severe requirement and I ask the Minister to reconsider it.
On the designation of special areas of conservation, are the proposed areas announced previously being reconsidered? This affects part of my constituency in Connemara. Are these areas being reconsidered with a view to reducing their number or what percentage of the land mass of Ireland will finally be designated as SPCs?
I welcome the Minister and the proposals he has set out for the coming year. I agree with Deputy McCormack in regard to a planning application in Galway. We are currently in the process of adopting a new county development plan and we have taken on board the proposals in the spatial strategy. I do not know if my colleague has a draft of the plan?
I do.
Section 3.1.7.6 states that a person living in the city, with no connection to an area situated a certain distance outside Galway city - in which there has been huge population growth - must have an association with that area in order to obtain planning permission. Only someone who is connected to the area through work, comes from the area or generates employment therein, will be able to obtain planning permission.
Deputy Grealish, who is a good colleague of mine, is on his first development plan. I have been through six county development plans.
We should discuss the situation in Galway.
The officials might interpret it differently.
We are taking on board the issue and I welcome the publication of the national spatial strategy. We are working in conjunction with the strategy to ensure that people who have a connection with an area will get planning permission. I agree with the Deputy in regard to the officials, who might be issued with a directive.
I have a difficulty with An Bord Pleanála in regard to waste management and housing. For example, two applications for recycling facilities were granted by Galway County Council. One of these applications related to the Parkmore area and I supported it. Approximately 3,000 people work in the area and 300 acres of land is zoned for industrial development. Galway County Council granted planning permission to a private developer for a waste recycling centre. Some 14 households in the area appealed the decision to An Bord Pleanála and, after a year and two months, the board refused the decision on the grounds that it was close to a residential area, which is absolutely ridiculous. I ask the Minister to look at this issue because recycling facilities should not be part of the planning process. The EPA and other agencies issue guidelines to ensure waste management is operated properly.
Mayo County Council granted permission for a recycling facility five kilometres outside Castlebar but An Bord Pleanála refused planning permission on the grounds that it was too far away from a town or village. Where will these recycling facilities be located? I welcome the Minister's comments that he will put much more money into recycling. If the infrastructure is not in place, however, what can be done? This is a major problem. To get the decision through the county council, given the opposition of 14 households, took a great deal of work. I ask the Minister to look at this issue because these facilities are needed.
The same applies to housing. If a developer applies for planning permission for a house, the local authority must make a decision within two months. Almost all decisions are now appealed to An Bord Pleanála and after eight months it can write back and say the permission has been put on hold for another two months. Developments can be held up for more than a year. I am aware of a case in Galway involving a land bank of approximately ten acres where the developer did a deal with the landowner. However, following a year and two months the landowner came back to the developer and said that the price of the land had increased and he wanted more money. These delays are causing major problems. The behaviour of the board must be looked at because the length of time it is taking to make decisions is causing major problems throughout the country.
I would like the Minister to consider private group water schemes. A group scheme in Galway is charging €1,500 to issue a letter. If one applies for planning permission, one must include a letter to the local authority for which a group water scheme charges €1,500. If one does not get planning permission, it is just one's own hard luck. I approached the county manager in respect of this matter and I was informed that we cannot get involved in private group water schemes. I also met the group federation of water schemes who said they could not get involved in private group water schemes.
I know of a developer in a rural area who got planning permission to build 45 houses. He was asked to pay €60,000 to the group water scheme by the person who has taken over control of the scheme. This person has not called a meeting for three years but he recently threatened to cut off the water supply unless the developer paid the charge. I had to tell the developer that there is nothing we can do because the council cannot get involved and the federation of group water schemes cannot get involved.
I ask the Minister to consider these issues.
I welcome the Minister and his officials and compliment him on being so forthright and honest. I agree wholeheartedly with what he has said.
I support Deputy McCormack with regard to the town renewal scheme. I agree with the Minister that the scheme is facing a critical period and that the take-up has been disappointing. While the timeframe for the scheme has been extended on a number of occasions, extending the scope of it has never been considered. By its nature, the scheme was restrictive and selective, particularly in the towns I have referred to where particular streets and areas are included while others are excluded. Within streets, particular buildings were excluded. For some strange reason, people who have been excluded from the scheme have told me that they want to avail of it but cannot while those within the scheme are for some reason not investing. There are grounds for examining the scheme to see if it could be extended or broadened to ensure there is a better take-up, as that has been disappointing.
I welcome the Minister and his work programme for the years ahead and I look forward to working with him in this committee. In keeping with the national spatial strategy with regard to towns and villages where local authorities have recently implemented town and village plans, and own substantial lands of perhaps 25 acres in villages, the Minister should consider pilot programmes where affordable housing could be the key to keeping young couples in their parishes, as has happened in the Fingal County Council area. Houses previously built by local authorities are now selling for over €200,000. There is an ideal opportunity for local authorities to get a mix of affordable and other housing in towns and that should be looked at, especially where the council can provide land to form part of an affordable housing project under a public private partnership.
I thank Deputies for their contributions. They were interesting and to the point and I am sorry that Deputy Cuffe had to leave the meeting. I wish he had been able to stay longer and I would not consider our exchange that robust as we have had more difficult ones in the past. However, if anybody is to make a change, the question I asked was legitimate although it was diluted with regard to the spatial strategy. If there are issues with regard to developers that are particularly worrying Deputy Cuffe, and he feels they are of an illegal nature, as I think he was suggesting with regard to the operation of cartels, there are appropriate authorities to which he might bring his concerns.
I agree with Deputy Gilmore with regard to urban regeneration. There is a problem of depopulation in all of our cities. Some of the more successful social and affordable housing schemes have been smaller infill projects in city centre areas; there are some lovely schemes in place in different parts of the country. I would like to see urban sprawl retarded substantially because cities cannot continue expanding as they have, particularly the greater Dublin area. There must be more rejuvenation and there has been a lot of private sector investment in trying to build the population back in and trying to get a balance between the social and affordable housing elements that should exist. However, we have stopped the haemorrhage out of the cities. If that continued as it was some years ago we would be in a difficult position but we have begun to arrest that substantially due to the various measures put in place.
The environmental fund will be available to provide some of the resources for some of the issues that members have raised, particularly those that have arisen in the Wicklow County Council area which I will deal with shortly. I recognise that the resources available may be of assistance to local authorities and I intend to use them.
There is a strategic rail review in place and the Minister for Transport has made it clear that, at a minimum, there will be no railway lines torn up and abandoned. We have to look at the facilities in place. Deputy Cuffe misquoted me when he suggested I had said we should tear up railway lines and move everything onto the road. That is not true - I said that it was a nonsense and a bad waste of resources if it was costing €300,000 per passenger per year to move passengers from Limerick to Rosslare. That may be from a combination of a bad service, because people do not travel by that route or because of other factors. However, I said the situation needed to be looked at and that we must try to make the system work to the benefit of all in a practical sense. Everyone recognises that rail freight is totally under-utilised and I cannot understand why the volumes are not there. The Minister for Transport is looking at these issues and I welcome that.
Waste management, which Deputy McCormack commented on, is an important issue. I have made the position clear as to where we are going in this regard. The regional integrated waste management plans are now in place, they are good and it is now a question of implementing them. When a national view is put together, there may be some elements within the plan that will suggest overlapping, but I will wait and see what occurs. The bottom line is that the plans are in place and we will implement them. I support all local authorities in that undertaking.
On the housing strategies to which Deputy McCormack and others referred, I have in the national spatial strategy turned the coin the other way around. The strategy does not dwell on what cannot be done but on what can, and I am leaving that to the local authorities. The regional planning guidelines will be particularly important and local councils and councillors can take a lot of comfort from some of the difficulties in the way the strategy is constructed. However, I am equally aware that what is a good strategy for Dublin is not necessarily a good strategy for Kerry or Connemara. This cannot be set in stone nationally with the expectation that everybody will do the same, but there is enough common sense and flexibility in it to meet the requirements of different parts of the country. People should be allowed to build their homes in places they have an attachment to and I have never been against that. Those bodies that have are wrong.
How will the Minister get that message across?
I have travelled the country talking about the national spatial strategy and that point has been taken on board. I will set out further guidelines which will issue to the local authorities but the managers I have spoken to have got to grips with that message and I hope to see a positive influence from that. I will issue further guidelines and am conscious of getting that issue across.
The Deputy made a point with regard to declarations for all practising politicians. It is a minefield and a difficult area, but we must set standards for ourselves. It must be remembered, particularly when talking about local councillors, that local authorities are at the fulcrum of the planning process and that needs to be transparent. I realise it is difficult and am not suggesting it is not - perhaps there could be some streamlining. However, the core is transparency, whether with regard to national or local politicians. If there is any funding available to politicians, the transparency of the source of that funding is the key issue. That forms my opinion; I am not driven by other elements but I am driven by the issues of transparency and accountability.
We are at the end of the SAC process. There are a few more adjustments to be made but we are approaching 14%.
That is a similar figure to what was envisaged.
Yes, that was the commitment.
There is no reduction.
No, there are some adjustments in some areas, whether by addition or reduction in the shape of the area. By and large, we are within the broad thrust of the original figure of 14% or 15% and we will not row back from that. I would like the process to come to an end.
Deputy Grealish raised a number of points with regard to An Bord Pleanála but I cannot discuss the individual cases the Deputy raised. In principle, substantial progress has been made where An Bord Pleanála seems to have come down to its target of 18 weeks, and that is only very recently. In previous years, the length of time it was taking was unsatisfactory from my point of view and that of the previous Minister and the Department. There are now a lot of resources, there have been changes to the planning acts and I hope that system will operate on the basis of a quick response.
Deputies raised other general issues which concern me. It has to be understood, as I have said publicly, that a planning Bill is not just that but is a planning and development Bill. There has to be a balance between the two issues and it cannot be all one way. There are economic demands on our society and that puts pressure on us. Deputy Cuffe referred to the issue but did not acknowledge that, economically, Ireland has transformed itself in the past ten years. We all welcome that although there have been negative aspects. There are problems under the Kyoto protocols we have agreed to and those EU directives we must operate under. Two difficult issues meet head on and we must try to find a balance between them. However, it would be wrong to suggest that we do not have a very specific strategy in place because we do, and industry is now beginning to seriously buy into its responsibilities.
If all in our society did their bit, the pain would be very small and that is how these issues should be approached. If we all make a small contribution, we can achieve a lot and that has been the experience abroad. It is very much the experience in Ireland also on a range of issues which can be highlighted. If everybody buys into something, it can be very successful and the worries with regard to an issue fade away.
Group water schemes are of major concern to me. Ireland has probably the best quality water in Europe and we should not forget that. However, this issue is not just about resources but about trying to find the people managing the schemes, some of whom have not met for years and do not know each other. It is about trying to talk to them and bring them on board, about trying to get the committee to meet and trying to get them to understand that we need to bundle many of these schemes together. I acknowledge that the group water federation has been extremely helpful with regard to group schemes but it is a difficult issue. In some areas, one cannot tell who is responsible for a scheme and the poor people living in an area do not know either. Trying to find those responsible is a long, tedious process for officials who put an enormous amount of time into this.
We have made a huge dent in the 500 schemes and 400 will probably be done away with this year. Some 200 will be designed, built and operated and will be in the system this year, and that is a marvellous achievement of the officials involved, not mine. About another 100 will come into the public water schemes anyway and there should be 100 left which I hope to deal with in the next year or so. I want to see this issue off the agenda on my watch.
Deputies Cregan and Brennan have raised issues regarding urban renewal and town renewal schemes in particular. We must be clear that there will be no further extensions. The Minister for Finance was clear in the budget and we had enormous difficulty in getting European agreement on some of these schemes. It is not a question of whether one likes the schemes, although when they are gone people will probably be crying about them and the wonderful things they would have achieved. I am sending out a message to areas where these schemes are in force that people there have 18 months left. They should not come back in 18 months with a wonderful idea because it will be too late - we will not revisit the schemes. Many of the schemes have been very successful and we should capitalise on the opportunity that is there. I hope I have covered everything and I have enjoyed the discussion.
I want to clear up one thing with the Minister.
There will be a vote on Private Member's Business in about ten minutes and if Members have supplementary questions, they should ask them.
The Minister at an earlier stage accused me of distorting what he was saying and of misquoting him. On the issue of charging for waste, I want us to be clear. I listened carefully to what the Minister said, which was that the principle is that the polluter pays. He bemoaned the fact that no local authority was charging what waste disposal actually cost and he told us that the average cost is €11 per collection.
I conclude from that that the real cost of collection - which the Minister wants local authorities to charge for - when one takes into account the weekly collection of the green wheelie bin that most local authorities or private contractors make, is between €600 and €700 per year. He published legislation today which will give county managers the power to set that charge and it is clear that the purpose of the legislation is to enable managers to charge that amount per year to households. The Minister says that if there is recycling and other measures, the amount will be reduced. It will not - the experience has been that the cost of providing recycling infrastructure increases rather than reduces the cost.
The news we got today from the Minister and in the publication of the Bill is bad for householders. It gives county managers the power to impose charges of between €600 and €700 per year. All the talk of recycling from the Minister will not change that. If he wanted to talk about it, he had a chance yesterday when I tabled a question to him on recycling. It was not answered although I got a letter from the Ceann Comhairle saying that the Minister had no responsibility to the House for it. I found that remarkable but it is something I might take up again.
The Deputy can make the calculation and I do not argue with it. However, he ignores the other side of the equation. I simply made the point to the Deputy to provide information to the committee and to say that the real cost is not being charged even though we are legally obliged under the EU directive regarding the polluter pays principle. I was simply imparting the information to the committee so that the public can understand that they are being charged significantly less than the real cost of waste disposal. That is a matter for individual local authorities. I accept I cannot move to a waste charging principle until there are enough recycling facilities in place, but local authorities are moving fast in that direction.
As the Deputy is aware, he is open to get analysis on how other countries have been successful in providing incentives. There is a carrot and stick aspect to this and I am not pretending there is not. However, people have to be encouraged into the recycling area. To do that, facilities must be provided to cope with recycling but there must also be an incentive to recycle and that is achieved by charging by weight for waste. People are being told that if they do nothing there is a certain cost but if they do as they are asked, the cost will be a lot less. That is the point and that is what has been done in other countries.
Who is to pay for the recycling infrastructure?
I am paying for a lot of it.
The Minister is not.
I will be. Bring banks, composting and other facilities have been put in place. The Deputy will hear the substantial announcements I will make in the next two to three weeks. However, I will not pay for everything or pretend that this is all free. I am not trying to hide anything. I have been one of the most open and up front with regard to this issue. I believe in this process and that, as much as we buy and pay for electricity, this is one issue for which we must take individual responsibility. The State is saying to people that there is a better way of doing this. I want to move away from landfill because almost everything has gone to landfill. We are working well with the construction industry and there are other important aspects such as the excellent Irish Hotels Federation strategy which I launched the other day.
We know that large operators in the food industry are moving into this because they see major cost savings in recycling and prevention and other areas. We will not be satisfied until we get to the end game, at which point we will see the benefits. It is clear from the successful countries that lead the environmental agenda that they have achieved success through incentivisation, on one hand, and punishment, on the other.
The Minister is saying that if all recycling and the various improvements to which he referred are put in place, he will not have to meet the full charge because waste will be reduced naturally. He is also telling us that regional waste management plans will be implemented as adopted, irrespective of what efforts local authorities make to reduce or eliminate the amount of waste for incineration. In my region, for example, an incinerator is proposed for Galway city and a major landfill for east of Galway city. That will provide for Roscommon, Leitrim, Sligo and other counties which will not have to bother doing anything except send it all to Galway to be burned. Despite the efforts of Galway County Council and Galway City Council in reducing the amount - by 55% in the case of Galway city - that has to be disposed of, the Minister will still proceed with his adopted regional waste management plans which will place an incinerator in Galway city. That is ridiculous.
When the road tax increases were announced recently, the Minister gave an assurance that the proceeds would be ring-fenced and would be used for the maintenance and development of non-national roads. I have seen reports recently that some local authorities are on record as saying that they were taking moneys from the road maintenance programme to fund other programmes and to make up the shortfall in other programmes. What is the Minister doing to stand over his guarantee or assurance that road tax proceeds will be ring-fenced?
Deputy McCormack should know there are flexibilities in the county plan to take account of changes that have been made and of the built-in strategies to move more towards recycling. There will be disincentives of course. He answered my point for me. I want to make it expensive to landfill.
Will recycling be free?
A lot of it will. It cannot be suggested that a higher quality recycling system can be absolutely free. What can be done is to consider the business aspect. It is quite evident that is that recycling is serious business. Therefore, there are players in the marketplace who are interested in the elements of recycling. There is a balance and recycling is certainly cheaper than landfill.
That is not the experience to date.
It is the experience in Europe.
Will green bins be collected free of charge?
The Deputy is asking a difficult question and I will give the difficult answer. The Deputy wants me to suggest that recycling will be free, but that will not be the case.
The Minister says that it will reduce costs.
Of course it will because I am doing it through subsidisation and through providing facilities and resources for local authorities to provide facilities. It will be a combination of private and public sector involvement.
Where local authorities have segregated systems at present, the recycled end of it - namely, that involving green bins - is more expensive than the unsegregated system.
Where?
In local authorities.
I will ask the Minister to make his concluding remarks.
Not all of the costs to which the Deputy referred in respect of delivering facilities are taken in that. We are mandated to do this in regard to the environment and recycling and we are trying to push it in a certain direction. The Deputy may be trying to get me to suggest that if we go this way, everybody will avoid having costs. That is not the case and there is no point in pretending it is. I am trying to bring balance where the incentive will be to recycle. I think we can achieve that.
Deputy Allen asked a question about road tax. All the local authority mayors and managers who were with me earlier this week were genuinely surprised and pleased by the amounts they were able to get for non-national roads when a few months ago it was expected the fund would be down. The major way I was able to maintain the fund and get the same volume this year because of construction inflation reducing dramatically was through the road tax. The road tax was the figure that made a difference.
My point is that moneys were being taken from allocations to fund benchmarking, whereas the Minister said they would be ring-fenced.
The €434 million I have allocated was specifically for non-national roads. Nobody is taking money from that fund for any other purpose.
There was a report on it in the Irish Examiner last Tuesday.
We thank members for their contributions and the Minister and his officials for attending today's meeting.
The joint committee adjourned at 12.37 p.m. until Wednesday, 5 February 2003.