Speeches - January 2003
29 January 2003
Commencement Debate
Mr. Boyle: The Minister of State delivered a eulogy to an increasingly shabby Government. It treats the business of parliamentary democracy with contempt. This House met on 67 days last year.
Ms Hanafin: There was a general election.
Mr. Boyle: Last year, the 28th Dáil met for 26 days while the 29th Dáil met for 41 days, the same number of days that the Dáil met in 1923, the founding year of the State when a civil war took place. That the Government sanctions meetings of the Dáil on such an infrequent basis negates its claim to have a radical legislative programme. To date it has enacted 12 Bills, nine of which passed through the House on the last week of the previous session with the use of the guillotine and most of which were technical in nature.
The programme presented to the House today is startling in its lack of imagination. The Bills presented do not go near meeting the needs of those seeking the kind of change required in so many areas of Irish life. For example, the decision to reintroduce the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill with no indication as to when the Disabilities Bill will be reintroduced shows a further contempt of those with disabilities.
Ms Hanafin: That Bill is subject to an ongoing consultation process.
Mr. Boyle: The memorandum for the Education for Persons with Disabilities Bill refers to guaranteeing the needs of people with disability. Has the Government not learned that both Bills fell in the last Dáil because of its unwillingness to recognise the rights of people with disability? The proposed legislation will not address this.
One additional health Bill is proposed in addition to the three already before the House. None deals with the central question of health provision and the lack of equity for people who suffer from a health service that is more sick than many of those in need of it. Where is the innovation and the radicalism? This is a tired Government. It has achieved what it wanted and is content to be back in office without knowing what it wants to do.
The housing Bill is an indication that the Government is only concerned in the environmental area with meeting the needs of property over people. It fails to recognise the problems faced by many in our society. The protection of the environment Bill is indicative of the loose way in which the Government uses language. The Bill is not concerned with the protection of the environment, rather it will be a licensing of pollution Bill, in line with all environmental legislation introduced by the Government.
It is a pretence to suggest that the local government Bill will improve the powers of local government when its only two provisions will be to eliminate the dual mandate, which should not exist and which all Members should give up voluntarily, and to remove the power of people to democratically elect first citizens in their respective local authorities. The legislation does not contain one initiative in terms of improving the power of local government.
The Dáil is reconvening three weeks after the Westminster Parliament returned from its Christmas recess. In that time members of the Government, especially the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Transport, have signed orders without scrutiny or debate in this House on matters that are slowly dragging the country into involvement in a foreign conflagration which the people do not desire and which the world does not need.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy should conclude.
Mr. Boyle: I would value the extra four minutes granted to Deputy Rabbitte, but I will conclude. The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism will conclude this very short debate on behalf of the Government. He will ignore the fact that the Government will not introduce any significant legislation in this session. While we will get the knock-about debates, the House deserves more than the Cahirciveen chancer routine. We deserve a more significant legislative programme and we need active debate of sufficient length and depth. Unless the Government changes its ways, this will not happen in this session.
29 January
Committee on Public Accounts
Questioning of Secretary General of the Department of the Environment and Local Government, and Chief Executive of Duchas
Deputy Boyle: I have a series of questions but may I first ask a general question? The Minister recently said there will be a cost to the Exchequer of €1.2 billion a year if the country exceeds its current level of commitment to the Kyoto protocol. How has that figure been arrived at?
In regard to the report and accounts before us, I wish to ask a series of questions on housing. In his earlier reply, Mr. Callan indicated that the cost of producing a house in Dublin was £168,000 and the cost outside of Dublin was £123,000, a difference of £47,000 or €56,000 per unit. I presume the difference in cost is largely to do with land acquisition. As a result, the average cost per unit in Dublin at £168,000 would be €215,000, which indicates that to provide a single unit of social or local authority housing in Dublin is more than the average house price of acquiring such units in the country in general. To what extent is the provision of such housing units built on a value for money principle in terms of their future maintenance? Many of us who have operated in the local government system have seen considerable annual expenditure at that level for maintaining buildings that were not properly constructed in the first instance. How does the Department monitor that type of value for money in its housing programme in general? What does the Department do to ensure low cost maintenance for house dwellers? Anecdotal and personal experience indicates that people who live in social and local authority housing pay a greater proportion of their income in terms of heat, light and general maintenance which is not taken care of by local authorities.
Does the Department keep a register of land owned by local authorities throughout the country? If there is a problem in terms of land acquisition and the unit price for houses, are there regulations to discourage local authorities from getting rid of existing land, or the circumstances in which they can get rid of the land? I ask this because in some instances land has been got rid of in circumstances that may not be considered value for money.
Is there an estimate of what it will cost the Government to bring group water and sewerage schemes up to the standard required by the group water directive and the urban waste water directive?
Does the Department keep a register of the level of indebtedness of each local authority, the degree to which loans are outstanding and the cost of servicing such loans? Such information would indicate the extent to which the outgoings of each local authority go on servicing such loans to the detriment of other services.
Mr. Callan: The question of fines applicable to Ireland in the event of non-compliance with or exceeding of our limits under the Kyoto Protocol is complex and the Minister's statement has been somewhat misunderstood. I would need more time to consult to be sure of all the technical details but it is my understanding that while considerable leverage has been built into the Kyoto Protocol in terms of compliance, and properly so, a quantified fine of that kind is unlikely to arise in the short term, or at least until 2012 or so, even in the hypothetical situation involved. There is a subsidiary and related issue, which is that the EU is currently concluding an emissions trading directive. There are penalties or quasi-penalties built into that and it will have application from about 2005 for a period of some years. Rather than swap figures with the Deputy, I would prefer to give him a note on exactly how these various mechanisms might apply in the hypothetical situation of non-compliance by Ireland with the protocol and I will see to that.
Without going into the question of comparing the cost of local authority houses in Dublin and elsewhere in fine detail, one assumes that factors such as different contractor prices in Dublin and other parts of the country and the possibility of more and cheaper greenfield development outside Dublin than in a relatively built-up area, contribute to the differences.
In approving local authority housing proposals, the Department pays particular attention to the question of future maintenance and to factoring in the value of a low-maintenance or maintenance free period in the future. For older houses, there is a scheme for area regeneration and remedial works, which tries to extend the life and improve the environment of these houses. All houses, including local authority houses, must comply with minimum building regulations. It is, obviously, a firm principle with the Department that local authority houses show this compliance.
About €430 million has been invested by local authorities in land banks to meet the needs of the social housing programme. To the best of my knowledge, we do not have a comprehensive register of land owned by local authorities although this will soon become available to everybody by virtue of the new accounting and financial management system which is being rolled out in local authorities and which will require them, on the accrual accounting principle, to operate an asset register. A survey of available public lands for housing, including local authority lands, is being conducted under the auspices of the Office of Public Works but is not yet complete. That will also give us more information.
We have budgeted to spend €644 million within the NDP period, that is up to 2006, on measures to improve rural water supplies. Approximately 70% of this will be targeted on the BMW region, where group water quality problems are most acute. This gives a medium-term estimate of what we feel is necessary to bring group water schemes up to standard. It may not be the end of all investment in these schemes because there will always be a need to visit earlier schemes which are falling out of compliance and which may need re-investment. However, that is our medium term investment target at this stage.
My understanding, subject to checking, is that information regarding the indebtedness of local authorities is set out in the volume published by the Department, Returns of Local Taxation. This is a collation of returns from local authorities which we publish annually. It is, admittedly, a little in arrears but I believe it contains balance sheets and figures of the kind mentioned by the Deputy. I will research that and let the Deputy have the latest data.
Deputy Boyle: In relation to comparisons of provisions of housing units, does the Department have a measure of how similar housing is being provided in the private sector? There are no direct local authority build units and very often the same contractor will produce similar houses for both sectors which can be costed on the private market. Is there a measurement which the Department uses because it seems the cost of providing local authority houses might be higher than it would otherwise be?
Mr. Callan: There is, of course, competitive tendering for all local authority housing schemes. Not all local authority houses are procured as direct builds. Authorities also buy houses, in turnkey operations, which are built in the private sector and therefore benefit from whatever the going rate is in the marketplace. It is a mixed situation. Of course we keep an eye on these comparisons all the time.
We are very focused on unit costs in acting as controller of the local authority housing programme at national level and we constantly remind individual local authorities if they are out of line with norms and averages or performance elsewhere. It is our business to maximise output from the overall allocation assigned to the Department's Vote and we do that through many different administrative processes, including architectural inspection but also administrative comparisons of the kind I have mentioned.
Deputy Boyle: May I ask Mr. Canny a question?
Chairman: Mr. Callan is the accounting officer.
Deputy Boyle: It is in relation to Dúchas and a different perspective from that of my colleague, Deputy Connaughton I wish to ask about special areas of conservation that have been already designated and subsequent redesignations that have affected the value of land adjacent to them. I know the process is at an early stage and it depends on development plans that are coming under the new system, under the new Planning Act. To what extent does Dúchas involve itself in exercises of redesignating the boundaries of already designated special areas of conservation? I can cite one example in Inchadoney Island in County Cork and the fact that Dúchas has been prepared to talk with a company about possible redesignation of other areas that are in existence. I am interested in hearing an outline of the practice of that activity within Dúchas.
Mr. Callan: With your permission, Chairman, I will pass over to Michael Canny for a more detailed explanation. I simply say by way of broad comment that at this stage about 14% of the Irish land mass is under SAC designations and we are proposing to add a very small increment to that as I explained to Deputy Connaughton. Obviously, given the extent of those designations, it is only reasonable that the Minister responsible would hold himself open to some reasonable adjustment from time to time on the margins of the boundaries of designations which were made once off some years ago. That process is a proper and defensible one and is carried out by Dúchas.
On the issue on which Deputy Boyle touched marginally, about compensation in relation to designations made for nature conservation purposes, there is in existence a scheme of compensation for restrictions to farming practices and restrictions to turf cutting where SAC designations require these things. We operate a voluntary scheme which is funded from the Department's Vote to compensate farmers and people who have rights in relation to turf cutting, for restriction of those rights.
In the context of the Planning and Development Act 2000, the legislature has decided that designation for nature conservation purposes is non-compensatable in relation to any claim for diminished value of the land, or down-zoning, so to speak. We do not entertain compensation claims for land said to have lost its development potential by virtue of designation. The legislature has examined that issue and has expressly included it in the Schedule under the Planning Acts as a non-compensatable matter. Michael Canny can add more in relation to practice on redesignations.
Mr. Canny: In relation to boundary adjustments, we operate both a formal and an informal appeals or objections system where if a land owner feels that the land does not qualify for designation we will look at the case again. We have an informal system which deals with most of the cases. We go on to the land with the land owner and we either agree or disagree. We then have a more formal system where the land owner makes a case to an appeals advisory committee which makes a recommendation to the Minister. All appeals are dealt with on the basis of the scientific application of annexe three of the directive and would be based on the existence or non-existence of the habitats.
There are a number of cases where we designated the nearest physical features, such as a road boundary or something similar. There are lots of genuine cases where a particular vegetation or a community of vegetation or plants would come half way up the field and in that case it would be black and white and we would then agree to adjust the boundary. That is the main context in which adjustments would take place. Otherwise a new survey would give us new information which we would use.
As the Secretary General said, there is no compensation for potential loss or loss of potential. There is compensation for actual losses incurred and that is in the regulations and that was in the agreement with the main farming organisations.
30 January 2003
Motion Against Use of Shannon Airport by the US Military
Mr. Boyle: I have the distinction of being the only Member of the Dáil to have been born in the United States, a distinction shared by the founder of the party opposite. It was a birthright that enabled him to be a founder member of that party. My birthright and the experience of my formative years help inform me of a view of America that is a little more complex than some of the glib simplifications we hear from many participating in this debate.
America is a country with which we share a strong affinity in terms of our history and culture. Its people are open, dynamic and determined. I am able to make a distinction between that affinity and my regard for the American people and being able to oppose the Government which represents them and the policy it presents to the world. To be anti-war is not to be anti-American. To be against George Bush and his Administration is not to be anti-American. Unfortunately, the debate we have been having has been ignoring some of these simple truths.
Our historical and cultural relationship has developed even further in recent years. Our economic ties have grown stronger, involving 350 firms and almost 90,000 jobs. It has been suggested that these will be threatened by the nature and tone of the debate. However, I believe economic decisions made by American based multinationals are not informed by foreign policy but by the business sense that has enabled them to make profits worldwide. They are in this country because it makes economic sense for them to be here. Ireland provides access to a huge market and a workforce which is well educated and well motivated, and it enables such companies to take advantage of a very generous tax system, all of which will continue after this crisis has passed.
We have to condemn strongly the operations of the American Administration. Unfortunately, the American people are being badly led, as are the people of this country. The people of America are being badly misled and dragged into a military conflict for motives that are less than pure, reasons that are far from explainable, and ends that are of questionable morality.
I am not afraid to bring morality into this debate. I do not equate for one second the maladministration of President Bush and his cronies with the tyranny of Mr. Hussein and the Ba'ath Party in Iraq. However, I expect better from the world's biggest democracy. I expect the potential evident since the end of the Soviet Union and the existence of a world system with only one superpower to bring about a more peaceful world. A democracy should not have to resort to violence.
In the aftermath of 11 September 2001 one of the French newspapers led with the headline, 'We are all Americans now'. While that headline was a piece of emotional hyperbole, a part of me will always be American. However, for me, to be American is to take a stand with the millions of Americans opposing the actions of their Government and bring about a world where the types of policies practised by this Administration cannot come into being.
30 January 2003
Capital Acquisitions Tax Consolidation Bill, Second Stage
Mr. Boyle: Given the interest for this debate in the Chamber, there could be an argument for separate slots. I congratulate Deputy Broughan for literally exhausting his 30 minute slot. What I have to say will not take that long and I am sure my colleagues will remain within a similar timeframe.
In general, my party supports and encourages the principle of consolidation of legislation but questions why there is such a sense of priority about this tax. I am grateful for the briefings the Department of Finance has provided in anticipation of the legislation. Other questions should have been asked and perhaps one final Bill would have allowed us to make necessary changes to the tax itself or question the future of the tax before the consolidation exercise took place.
It is unfortunate we are not using this opportunity to put the three 'e' test that every tax has to be put through to gauge whether it is efficient, effective and equitable. We can ask questions on capital acquisitions tax as to whether each of these criteria is being met. It is a low-yield tax which does not raise much for the Exchequer and is inefficient in terms of the administrative back-up it requires to produce that yield. Whether it is equitable depends on what standpoint one takes. Some people get badly caught out in terms of gifts and inheritance and, for those individuals, the tax is inequitable. The problem with this capital tax as with many others is that the equity is perverse because many people who benefit from income as a result of having assets are rewarded by our taxation system and, rather than consolidate inequitable taxes like this Bill does, we should address the real and deep inequalities that exist in our system of taxation. It has already been mentioned that Ireland is the OECD's second most unequal nation in terms of wealth disparity, just behind our American cousins.
Within that we have the lowest tax yield of all taxes collected by the Revenue Commissioners. Even if one analyses those low tax yields, the balance between the taxes is heavily weighted towards taxes on people's income. This is a negative tax. We should instead encourage people to earn as much money as possible, hold on to as much as possible and tax negative activities within society through environmental taxes, for instance, which my party promotes, as well as taxes on wealth. The capital taxation system, as Deputy Broughan has pointed out, accounts for a mere 3.6% of all taxes collected in this country.
Because of that inequity, the Opposition must challenge the Government for representing the interests of the few - those who benefit from being on the right side of the wealth disparity which this country is so unwilling to properly tackle. I welcome the presence of the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Noel Ahern, who, under his portfolios, deals with the results of those inequalities. Through a series of budgets, the Minister for Finance has failed to tackle the fact that Irish people are more sinned against in terms of income tax and less so in terms of capital tax. I would take legislation like this more seriously if I thought that real reform was involved.
I do not agree with Deputy Broughan's description of the Minister as radical. My definition of radicalism is about reform in its real sense. It is not radicalism for change's sake or entrenching bad practices and inequalities that exist in our society and making them worse. On all those grounds, the Minister should be continually challenged.
There are difficulties in the Capital Acquisition Tax Consolidation Bill 2002 which cannot be addressed by way of amendment and there is a degree of superfluity about a debate of this nature. Why have we not looked at the difficulties, despite the indexing that exists in the levying of this tax, concerning the difference between actual inflation and the multiplier effect that exists with property inflation and how people will get caught out by it? Why are we not reflecting the realities of changing life within Irish society and Europe concerning what inheritance comes from where and from whom? For example, a number of European countries have legislated recently for legal recognition of couples of the same gender. We are in the EU and people who live within our jurisdiction will seek some kind of parity in terms of taxes of this type when matters such as gifts and inheritances are involved. I do not see how the nature of capital taxation, particularly capital acquisitions taxes, can evolve in light of those changing circumstances.
A consolidation Bill at this stage is disappointing because we have missed the wider picture. It should have been brought forward in the context of real reform of the taxation system. The disparities that exist in society as a result of the budget will worsen still further when the Finance Bill is introduced in coming weeks.
I reiterate my general support for the nature of consolidation of this area of legislation. I hope that the Minister and the Department will think about what has been said in this debate and introduce further legislation that will tackle the more important areas of fiscal policy, and I hope we will have a real debate and bring those changes about.
