Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Thursday, 4 Nov 2004

Priority Questions.

Local Authority Housing.

Ceisteanna (1, 2)

Fergus O'Dowd

Ceist:

1 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the new initiatives he intends to take to improve access to social and affordable housing in order to assist first-time buyers gain access to the housing market; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27702/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Eamon Gilmore

Ceist:

2 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number of private homes built in the State since the enactment of the Planning and Development Act 2000; the number of social housing units and affordable houses acquired to date by local authorities under Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27606/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (36 píosaí cainte)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.

Access to affordable housing for first-time buyers is an important objective of Government housing policy and we will continue to monitor and review housing developments and policies, as necessary, to achieve this aim. Our policy has been to make housing supply more responsive to demand and to moderate house price increases and improve affordability and access to housing, particularly for first-time buyers.

It is evident that the measures introduced by this Government to boost supply are having an affect. This year is likely to be the tenth year of record overall house completions with approximately 80,000 completions forecast. Between 2001 and June 2004, a total of 195,935 houses were completed. This increased supply supported by Government measures means the market is supplying houses in many areas at affordable prices. Furthermore, survey data available to the Department indicate that first-time buyers are active in this market with approximately 43% of new houses purchased by this group.

In addition to measures to support a market response to the unprecedented demand, the Government has placed an emphasis on the delivery of targeted schemes of affordable housing. These include the shared ownership scheme and 1999 affordable housing scheme and, more recently, schemes introduced under Part V of the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2002 and Sustaining Progress.

Part V, which deals with housing supply, came into force on 1 November 2000. It was amended in December 2002 to ensure increased delivery of affordable housing in a more efficient and effective way. The legislation provided for the preparation by planning authorities of housing strategies by 1 August 2001 and the incorporation of these strategies into development plans by way of a variation before the social and affordable requirement could be applied to relevant residential planning permission applications. As a result, it was early 2002 before Part V was fully operational countrywide.

Between 2002 and June 2004, a total of 209 affordable units and 106 social units were acquired by local authorities under Part V agreements with developers. The provision of Part V housing units is dependent on the level and commencement of private sector residential development and the nature of Part V agreements.

Substantial progress also continues to be made on the affordable housing initiative under the Sustaining Progress agreement. Part V affordable units are an important contribution to the initiative. More than 50 projects on State and local authority lands are planned at this stage which, together with 2,100 affordable Part V units, will deliver a total of approximately 8,900 units under the initiative. My Department is engaged with a number of other Departments and State agencies with a view to securing further lands to reach the agreed target of 10,000 units. In particular, the Department of Health and Children is examining an inventory of health board lands to identify sites, which could potentially yield 1,500 units under the initiative. It is envisaged that more than 11,000 units will be delivered under the various affordable schemes between 2005 and 2007.

Is it not the case that more than €5 billion was taken in tax from first-time buyers last year? As a consequence, 45% of the cost of every house goes into the Government's coffers. What new schemes will be introduced? Does the Minister of State accept the current generation of 20 somethings is the first to be unable to purchase a home? Two people in their 20s must wait until they are in their mid-30s before they can afford to buy their own home. That is shameful and disgraceful, given the wealth in our society and the amount the Government is ripping off home buyers.

Is it time the Government introduced a special savings scheme for first-time purchasers under which they would be given €1 interest for every €3 they saved over a two-year period; frontloaded mortgage interest relief, which is currently spread over the lifetime of the loan, over the first seven to ten years; and abolished stamp duty on houses so that first-time purchasers can buy second hand houses, which are cheaper and more accessible to them than new homes? The Minister of State is letting the country down and he is also letting young people down by not giving them a chance.

I do not agree with the Deputy. Ten years ago, 22,000 houses were being built annually whereas this year more than 75,000 will be built. It is estimated that 43% of houses are being bought by first-time buyers. Most people are managing to buy.

They are not.

Certain categories of people need help and that is why targeted schemes have been introduced. The shared ownership scheme was introduced in the early 1990s while the local authority scheme was introduced in 1999. The Part V and Sustaining Progress schemes were introduced in recent years.

Last year, under the local authority schemes, 2,600 affordable units were provided and they were targeted at people in the low income bracket whom I acknowledge have been under pressure in recent years. The Part V and Sustaining Progress schemes have yet to kick in but housing cannot be addressed by just clicking one's fingers. It takes time and policies must be introduced and developed. All developers say it takes approximately four years to build and sell houses.

A number of the initiatives mentioned by the Deputy would be more appropriate to the Minister for Finance. However, mortgage interest relief has been adjusted, as has stamp duty. House prices continue to increase and, perhaps, stamp duty needs to be adjusted again. The rent a room scheme has also been introduced.

Why not abolish the VAT increase on building materials?

Deputy O'Dowd stated 45% of the cost of every house goes to the Exchequer. The research he conducted is absolute nonsense. It was bull of the highest order. If one buys a suit or a desk, one pays VAT. That research was a theoretical exercise, which is not relevant to the real world.

The number of houses built annually has increased for each of the past ten years. Ten years ago, 22,000 houses were being built annually but this year more than 75,000 units will be built. Houses are being constructed at a faster rate than in any other country. We are getting there. There was significant pent up demand and the increase in population must be considered in this context. According to last year's census, the population had increased by 8% in the previous six years while the number of people in the key household formation age group, which is between 25 and 34, increased by 18%.

The Government knew that 25 years ago.

We did not because if we did, we would be much better off.

We had emigration 25 years ago.

That put significant pressure on the market.

People cannot afford houses. Investors are buying them.

Young people are buying them.

The Minister of State has developed a skill whereby he avoids answering questions by putting two questions together, which are not necessarily connected, and then giving us lectures on everything from population growth to the weather.

That is not much of a skill.

I refer to the information he outlined, which is extremely interesting. Do I understand the Minister of State correctly that since the Planning and Development Act 2001 was enacted, 196,000 private houses have been built — almost 200,000 dwellings built — and that of those, only 209 are affordable houses under the Part V scheme and only 106 are social housing? Is the Minister of State serious in informing the House that only 300 social and affordable houses have been made available under Part V, out of a total of 200,000 built since the Planning and Development Act was enacted three years ago? Is that the information he is giving the House?

I gave the House the details and answered Deputy O'Dowd's question.

The Minister of State should answer my question now.

I will. We have four affordable housing schemes.

I know all about those schemes. My question is about Part V.

Allow the Minister of State without interruption.

I am answering the Deputy by saying we have four affordable housing schemes. Under the third of those schemes, which is the Part V scheme, approximately 300 affordable houses have been produced to date.

Out of 200,000.

But it is a relatively new scheme.

It has been in existence for five years; it was announced five years ago.

Deputy Gilmore, I ask you to allow the Minister of State to answer without interruption.

The Minister of State should not insult the House. It was five years ago.

As I have tried to explain to the Deputy at every Question Time and elsewhere, it takes time to build houses.

Five years.

Anybody in the business will tell the Deputy that from the time a site is acquired, it takes four or five years. While 196,000 houses have been built in that period, most of them had received planning permission before Part V was enacted. As such, they were built without having to come under the regulation of Part V. The real value of Part V will be seen from this year onwards.

It always is.

Allow the Minister of State, Deputy Gilmore, please.

Well, it really will be and it may take a few more years to really build up. One cannot think in the short term in terms of housing. One must make policy decisions which are for the long term. One must just forget about the headlines on next month's newspaper.

The Government has been in office for the long term, for seven years, and it has not delivered.

We are delivering. There will be 75,000 houses this year. It is all about supply. Only when the supply is there will sense be brought to the market and units will become more affordable.

The 12 minutes allowed for this question is concluded.

Dublin Docklands Development Authority.

Ceisteanna (3)

Tony Gregory

Ceist:

3 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on any conflict of interest which would inhibit the Dublin Docklands Development Authority from making balanced planning decisions in the Docklands area. [27650/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (20 píosaí cainte)

The executive board of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority comprises a chairperson and seven ordinary directors, with business, management, public sector, financial, architectural and engineering backgrounds. Accordingly, the board has been assigned to bring a wide range of experience to bear in directing the performance by the authority of the functions assigned to it under relevant legislation.

It inevitably arises for the above that entities with which board members are associated may have legitimate business interests in the docklands area. The authority has adopted a formal code of conduct for its board and employees, which requires disclosure of interests by board members and specifies procedures to be followed in the event of a conflict of interests. I consider that observance of this code should allow the DDDA executive board to benefit from the relevant knowledge and expertise of persons with the backgrounds outlined above, while avoiding material conflicts of interest.

I wish to make a further point to the Deputy. It is difficult in a relatively small city to select people with the talent and the time and who are willing to give service to the public through these boards.

This executive board is effectively the planning authority for the docklands area. Some of the board members, including the chairman, are associated with Anglo-Irish Bank, which is now funding the largest development in the whole north docklands, a development to which they, as board members, granted the planning permission in the first place. The Minister referred to a code of conduct in his reply. What course of action will the board's code of conduct provide when these same developers make new planning applications and come to the docklands board looking for planning permission? Will members associated with Anglo-Irish Bank, including the chairman, simply absent themselves and if so, how could the board of the DDDA realistically fulfil its functions as planning authority in those circumstances? On the other hand, if they do not absent themselves, there must surely be a question of a conflict of interest when they are making a decision on future planning applications.

How are local community interests protected in this set up? Is it any wonder a local residents' leader expressed serious concerns regarding the Spencer Dock development, where planning permission was granted in contravention of the docklands own master plan while the views of the community representatives on the docklands' council were ignored? Following that——

A question, please, Deputy.

I am concluding the question, Cheann Comhairle. The bank with which some board members are associated funds the Spencer Dock development and the chairman of the authority accepts a position on the board of that bank. The Minister must surely agree that a very serious conflict of interest exists somewhere. I ask the Minister whether it is time to review the membership of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority.

I thank the Deputy for those questions. I reiterate the point that in a relatively small city in European terms, it is very difficult to find people willing to——

I have specific questions.

I listened with courtesy to the Deputy and I ask him to do the same. I will answer the specific points raised by the Deputy. The board operates as a planning authority and the point I made is none the less valid in that regard because the membership of the board is drawn from a relatively narrow pool. Planning decisions are taken by the executive board of the DDDA. They have regard to the assessment and to the recommendations of the professional staff. As with all other planning issues, those are recommendations. Possible conflicts of interest will inevitably arise from time to time but if the Deputy is suggesting that they have behaved with impropriety, then that is a very serious allegation.

I asked specific questions. I am not making any suggestions. It is wrong and irresponsible of the Minister——

Allow the Minister without interruption.

The Chair should protect me. I asked a specific question based on fact.

The Chair has no control over the answers to questions.

I am simply making the point to the Deputy that if he has some suggestion to make that there is impropriety, he should give me the details.

It would be helpful if the Minister answered the questions I asked him.

Given the nature of the activity of the DDDA, and the nature of the board, there will inevitably be areas of overlap but to suggest that is the same thing as wrongdoing is wrong.

I have not mentioned the word "wrongdoing".

Elsewhere the Deputy has suggested that people should be removed. There is a code of conduct which is operational and it is the same code of conduct as operates in other areas of the public service. On appointment, members are expected to furnish details which has been done. When an item for discussion creates a conflict, that may be discussed. The code of conduct is published. In so far as I have any information, there is nothing to say it has been breached.

That is very helpful.

I take the points made by the Deputy seriously. If he wishes, I will write to him in detail.

The Minister will not answer the questions I have asked.

Allow the Minister of State to answer Question No. 4.

Anti-Social Behaviour.

Ceisteanna (4)

Pádraic McCormack

Ceist:

4 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he has plans to take measures to combat anti-social behaviour in housing estates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27704/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (8 píosaí cainte)

Local authorities are responsible under the Housing Acts for the management and maintenance of their housing stock, including addressing any problems arising on their housing estates from serious anti-social behaviour. They have been encouraged by my Department to use the statutory powers available to them, where appropriate.

The primary purpose of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 is to provide for a range of measures to assist local authorities in addressing problems arising on their estates from drug dealing and serious anti-social behaviour. The Act gives recognition to the role of local authorities in actively promoting the interests of tenants and other occupiers of the housing and also in working towards the avoidance, prevention and abatement of anti-social behaviour. It forms part of a wider range of measures undertaken by Government to deal with the issue of drugs and related crime.

The serious problems posed by crime and anti-social behaviour in many local authority housing estates and the negative impact on the morale of tenants and the living conditions of tenants and residents formed a background to the introduction of the Act. One of the main provisions of the 1997 Act enables a local authority tenant, or the local authority in certain circumstances, to apply to the District Court for an excluding order against an individual member of the household who is believed to be engaging in anti-social behaviour. The measures contained in the 1997 Act are essential to ensure that local authorities have the capacity to take effective action in this area.

The recently enacted Residential Tenancies Act 2004 contains a number of provisions to address the issue of anti-social behaviour in private rented accommodation and extends the local authority power to obtain excluding orders in respect of the occupants, other than the owner, of tenant purchased houses. It also extends the local authority power to refuse to sell, under the tenant purchase scheme or the affordable housing scheme, a house to a person suspected of engaging in anti-social behaviour.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

The housing unit, which is funded by my Department and local authorities, has produced a guidance booklet for local authorities entitled, Preventing and Combating Anti-Social Behaviour, and has organised training courses for local authorities in this regard. In this wider context, my Department has put in place a housing management initiatives scheme which includes funding for programmes to improve estate management, tenant liaison and training initiatives.

The measures I have outlined are intended to support local authorities in their efforts to prevent and combat anti-social behaviour in their areas. Wider issues relating to matters of a criminal nature come within the remit of the Garda and my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Is the Minister of State aware of the anxiety caused in many housing estates, particularly to elderly people, by the elements participating in anti-social behaviour? Does he not think it worthwhile to correct the cause of this problem by providing the necessary recreational facilities in estates, particularly local authority estates, before the houses are occupied? That might prevent much of the unnecessary anti-social behaviour, which is carried out mainly by young people gathering in groups who have nowhere else to go and who make life hell for the residents, particularly older people, in those estates. Has the Minister of State plans to provide, in future planning of local authority estates in particular, the necessary recreational facilities before the houses are occupied, thus dealing with the cause of the problem rather than talking about evictions and so on after it has arisen?

I fully understand the anxiety, which I witness in my constituency. I am aware of the serious effect of anti-social behaviour on people's quality of life. Local authorities have the power to seek exclusion orders and we have extended that power. We often heard from local authority officials in my area, particularly since 1997, that certain families were tenant purchasers and they could not touch them. Under the Residential Tenancies Act, however, they have the power to move on tenant purchasers, although not the owner because of the constitutional problems, but the children or the adult siblings in the house. I hope that new power will strengthen the work of local authority officials. In addition, a housing management scheme on which the Department spends a few million euro every year gives grants to local authorities for tenant training and, in some cases, for tenant liaison officers.

The Deputy has a point when he talks about facilities. For the past ten years we have been building good quality estates but in the 1960s and 1970s huge estates were built, which was probably good for the Minister of the day in that he could make those announcements, but the architectural design of many of them was bad and the facilities were not put in. That was a time when there was not the same money in the country as there is now. We are now spending a fortune on remedial work and regeneration schemes. I believe we are spending €160 million a year trying to put right the mistakes made in the 1960s and early 1970s, but I agree with the Deputy. In the other Department in which I am involved, under the young people's facilities and services fund, we are putting money into facilities because we built estates 30 years ago and gave people houses but we did not give them facilities or amenities. I hope we have learned our lesson in that regard because the quality of design of housing built in recent years is far better. I hope we have addressed many of those problems.

I accept what the Minister of State said about the quality of houses but I ask him to consider another aspect. Many houses in local authority estates are bought and resold and the people in those houses are on rent supplements. There is no fall-back on that. I ask the Minister to address the problem of people on rent supplement because no action can be taken against them. The rent supplement cannot be withdrawn, irrespective of the anti-social behaviour of the tenants who are making life hell for their neighbours.

Under the Residential Tenancies Act, in which the Deputy was involved for much of Committee Stage of the Bill, powers are now available. The tenant, or a third party who happens to be living next door, can bring the landlord to a disputes resolution system——

If the landlord is known.

They are known. They will be able to go to the Residential Tenancies Board. That new power will come into operation on 1 December. The Deputy has a point, however, in regard to that category of people but we are addressing that problem and we have addressed the tenant purchase problem. Local authorities can only solve this problem on a multi-agency basis. We need the gardaí and others to work with us, but we have the law now and I believe it will help matters.

One tenth of them are not registered and they will not be.

Decentralisation Programme.

Ceisteanna (5)

Eamon Gilmore

Ceist:

5 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number of his Department’s Dublin-based staff who have applied through the central applications facility for decentralisation for the proposed new location for his Department at Kilkenny, New Ross and Wexford; the grades of staff who have applied; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27607/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (30 píosaí cainte)

A total of 495 applications had been received at the central applications facility at the priority cut-off date on 7 September, in respect of the 661 posts to be decentralised from my Department's Dublin offices and which are fillable through the CAF. A total of 31 staff from my Department's Dublin offices have applied for decentralisation to the Department's proposed four locations in the south east — Wexford, Kilkenny, New Ross and Waterford. I propose to circulate in the Official Report a tabular statement setting out the information on the grades. Some 139 staff of my Department have applied for decentralisation to other Departments or agencies.

The Department has drawn up and submitted to the decentralisation implementation group an implementation plan which sets out the broad issues to be addressed in implementing the decentralisation programme. It will be recalled that the Department has been to the fore in previous decentralisation programmes involving the movement of a range of sections to Shannon and Ballina in 1983 and subsequently in 1989. Furthermore, the Department supported the successful mobilisation and establishment of the EPA headquarters in Johnstown Castle, Wexford, in 1993-94.

The Department will co-operate with the Department of Finance, the implementation group and the Office of Public Works to ensure the Government's decentralisation policies are implemented efficiently and effectively.

Principal Officer

3

Assistant Principal Officer

3

Higher Executive Officer

4

Administrative Officer

3

Executive Officer

5

Staff Officer

1

Clerical Officer

5

Accountant

1

Inspector

3

Senior Meteorological Officer

1

Archaeologist

1

Assistant Fire Adviser

1

Total

31

Do I understand from the Minister's reply that of the 660 jobs in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government which will be in Kilkenny, New Ross, Wexford and Waterford, only 5% of them have been applied for by existing staff of the Department? Do I, therefore, understand from that that if this Department is decentralised to these four locations, it will effectively have to be reconstructed, with 95% of its staff coming from outside the existing Department? What assessment has been made by the Minister or his Department of the cost of reconstructing the staff of the Department? What is the cost associated with the training which will be required if 95% of the staff have to come from outside? What assessment has been made of the loss of departmental memory which will result from the Department having to be reconstructed? What assessment has been made of the disruption of service to the public if the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has to be reconstructed, with 95% of its new staff coming from outside, in four different locations?

I will deal with some of the details because the Deputy is perhaps inadvertently exaggerating the nature of the problem. I will give him some idea of the figures. In the case of Wexford, there will be 249 CAF jobs. The number of applications made from the general service there is 228, or 92%. They are from all Departments.

How many are from the Minister's Department?

I am just making the point——

How many are from the Minister's Department? The question was about the applications from his Department.

The question——

On a point of order, my question concerns the number of applications from within the Minister's Department. I have not asked a question about the number of applications from outside the Department. I ask the Ceann Comhairle for his protection.

That is not a point of order. As the Deputy is aware, the Chair has no control over answers to questions.

I ask the Minister to confine his remarks to the question he was asked.

I will address the Deputy's specific point. As I indicated, 31 applications were received from within the Department.

That is equivalent to 5% of staff.

I wish to make a point regarding supplementary issues raised by the Deputy.

They were not related to figures.

They were about the workability of the Department in the context of the decentralisation programme. We will transfer talented people from other Departments. In the theory of public administration we operate, particularly in the context of the general services, the concept of mobility between Government Departments has been espoused, practised and praised for many years.

In the case of Wexford, to which 249 jobs will be decentralised, we have already received applications for 92% of available positions from the balance of the Civil Service. The applicants are talented, committed public servants who without doubt have the capacity to take up the jobs in which they will be placed. In the case of Kilkenny, to which 62 CIF jobs will be transferred, 77 applications have been made, which is 24% higher than required. I do not suggest there will be no difficulty. The Deputy could, perhaps correctly, point to the transfer of technical and specialist staff.

Will the Minister answer the question about loss of departmental memory?

I am making the point that in the concept of public administration we operate civil servants can transfer from one Department to another and regularly do so on promotion.

They do not all transfer at the same time.

People will bring vast experience from other Departments.

Has the Minister assessed the loss of departmental memory?

Given the manner in which public administration is designed, the issue of departmental memory is a canard, as the Deputy well knows.

What is a canard?

Let me inform the Deputy what is a canard. A canard is when a member of the public telephones the Department in Wexford and is told——

The situation is——

A canard looks and walks like a duck.

I find the comment from the member of the Green Party particularly bizarre given that his party argues there is over-concentration on Dublin.

I respect that the Minister has a sense of proportion and knows what difficulties the decentralisation process will create. Given that only 5% of staff from his Department have offered to move and the complexity of the issues with which his Department must deal, many of which are specialised, will he reconsider the proposed decentralisation of his Department in the manner announced? Every Deputy knows the proposal will not work if only 5% of staff agree to move.

The type of doomsday scenario described by the Deputy has not arisen in cases of decentralisation of whole sections. I suggest that rather than make false claims, it would be a good idea if every Member of the House threw their weight into making the decentralisation policy, which is good in terms of spatial strategy and the development of public service, work.

It is a daft policy.

It has no connection with the national spatial strategy.

Barr
Roinn