Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 11 Jul 2024

Tá sé go deas gur tháinig an tAire Stáit isteach. Is cuidiú mór é i ndéileáil leis an gceist seo. Mar is eol dó, tá líon mór teifeach ón Úcráin agus ó thíortha eile lonnaithe sa Ghaeltacht i láthair na huaire. Níl a fhios againn cén tionchar fadtéarmach a bheidh aige seo ar staid na Gaeilge sa Ghaeltacht. I gConamara, tá teifigh lonnaithe sa Spidéal, sa gCeathrú Rua, san Aird Mhór, atá gar go Carna, i gCarna féin agus ar a bhóithre, áiteanna a bhfuil scoileanna lán-Ghaelach atá páirteach i scéim na scoileanna Gaeilge de chuid an pholasaí oideachais Ghaeltachta. Thug mé an cheist seo trí cheist pharlaiminte i dtosach báire. Chuir mé ceist ar Roinn an Aire Stáit agus fuair mé an freagra seo:

Is ceist don Aire Leanaí, Comhionannais, Míchumais, Lánpháirtíochta agus Imeasctha í lóistín a sholáthar d’Iarrthóir ar Chosaint Idirnáisiúnta agus do theifigh agus níl aon ról ag mo Roinn staidéar dá leithéid a dhéanamh.

Is éard a bhí mé ag iarraidh a dhéanamh ná fáil amach an bhfuil tionchar diúltach aige seo ar staid na teanga. Nuair a diúltaíodh do mo cheist agus nuair a iarradh orm dul go siopa eile, chuaigh mé go siopa eile. Chuir mé an cheist ar an Roinn Leanaí, Comhionannais, Míchumais, Lánpháirtíochta agus Imeasctha. Ba é an cheist chéanna a bhí ann, is é sin, an bhfuil i gceist ag an Aire staidéar teangeolaíochta a dhéanamh ar an tionchar ó thaobh na teanga de a d’fhéadfadh a bheith ag lonnú teifeach ón Úcráin agus tíortha eile i nGaeltachtaí láidre i bhfianaise na hoibre ar fad atá ar bun maidir le pleanáil teanga sa Ghaeltacht agus an fhreagracht tras-rialtas atá ag Ranna maidir le cur i bhfeidhm na straitéise 20 bliain don Ghaeilge, agus an ndéanfaidh sé ráiteas ina thaobh. Ba é an freagra a fuair mé ón gCeann Comhairle ná nach bhfuil aon fhreagracht oifigiúil ag an Aire don Dáil maidir leis an ábhar seo gur ábhar é a bhaineann leis an Aire Turasóireachta, Cultúir, Ealaíon, Gaeltachta, Spóirt agus Meán. Bhí mé ag dul timpeall i gciorcail. Caithfidh go bhfuil freagracht ag daoine éigin as seo. Táimid ag caitheamh go leor airgid ar an nGaeilge. Mar a deirim, níl mé ag iarraidh ar éinne aon chinneadh a dhéanamh ach staidéar a dhéanamh ar an tionchar ar an teanga.

Tá go leor ar bun leis an nGaeilge a chur chun cinn. Ba cheann de na rudaí is mó a rinneadh thart ar 20 bliain ó shin ná srianta a chur ar thithíocht sa Ghaeltacht, go mórmhór ar thógáil eastáit tithíochta.

Cén fáth? Mar bhí faitíos orainn ag an am, dá dtiocfadh go leor daoine gan Ghaeilge sa Ghaeltacht, go dtiontódh na scoileanna agus an pobal ar an mBéarla. Is í sin an fhadhb atá anseo. I gcroílár na Gaeltachta, tá lear mór daoine tagtha isteach agus, rud atá aisteach go leor, cé go bhfuil tacaíocht teanga á dtabhairt dóibh leis an mBéarla a fhoghlaim, agus níl fadhb ar bith agam leis sin mar caithfidh chuile dhuine Béarla a fhoghlaim - tá sé riachtanach sa saol seo, níl aon rud déanta, áfach, agus muid i mbun pleanála teanga, le déileáil leis an dúshlán nua seo. Mar sin, is í an cheist atá agam ná an bhfuil muid sásta, ar an gcéad dul síos, staidéar a dhéanamh ar an tionchar ar an teanga a fhéadfadh a bheith leis an bpolasaí chun teifigh a lonnú sa Ghaeltacht. Ag brath ar an toradh air sin, cad is féidir linn a dhéanamh leis an dochar sin – má tá sé diúltach - a mhaolú nó a chur ar neamhní ar fad?

Is dóigh liom gur ceist réasúnta í. Is ceist í, dar liom, ó tharla go mbreathnaíonn sé go mbeidh teifigh lonnaithe go buan sa Ghaeltacht, ar fiú a chíoradh go mion agus rud éigin a dhéanamh faoi.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Ó Cuív. Bhí mé ag éisteacht go géar leis an méid a bhí a rá aige. Caithfidh mé a rá, i dtosach báire, agus tá a fhios ag an saol é seo, go bhfuil an fhreagracht maidir le soláthair lóistín d’iarrthóir ar chosaint idirnáisiúnta agus do theifigh ag an Roinn eile, is í sin, an Roinn Leanaí, Comhionannais, Míchumais, Lánpháirtíochta agus Óige. Mar is eol do chách, níl aon ról agam ina leith. Sa chomhthéacs sin agus i gcomhthéacs na Gaeltachta, bhí plé teoranta ag oifigigh mo Roinne lena gcomhghleacaithe sa Roinn leanaí maidir le cásanna áirithe inar ardaíodh ceisteanna le mo Roinn maidir le lonnú iarrthóirí ar chosaint idirnáisiúnta agus teifeach sa Ghaeltacht.

Is mian liom, thar ceann an Rialtais, aitheantas a thabhairt don tacaíocht atá tugtha ag pobail Ghaeltachta ar fud na tíre dóibh siúd atá tagtha go hÉireann ag lorg dídine. Cosúil go leor pobail timpeall na tíre, chuir siad fáilte roimh na daoine seo atá ag teacht isteach chuig a gcuid bailte agus sráidbhailte. Thug siad deiseanna oibre dóibh nó thacaigh siad leo leis an nGaeilge – agus leis an mBéarla, is dócha – a fhoghlaim inár gcuid scoileanna áitiúla, freisin. Cé go bhfuil dul chun cinn suntasach déanta ag an Rialtas maidir le tithíocht a aimsiú dóibh siúd atá tagtha go hÉireann, níor éirigh linn spás a aimsiú do gach uile duine acu. Tá 2,300 duine fágtha gan dídean faoi láthair.

Tá cúrsaí Gaeltachta agus Gaeilge agus Achtanna na dTeangacha Oifigiúla luaite ag an Teachta Ó Cuív ina cheist. Maidir le dul chun cinn faoi Achtanna na dTeangacha Oifigiúla, d’fhógair mé le déanaí go raibh an chéad plean náisiúnta um seirbhísí poiblí Gaeilge curtha faoi mo bhráid ag an gcoiste comhairliúcháin sheirbhísí Gaeilge faoin spriocdháta reachtúil, an 19 Meitheamh 2024. Tuigim gur tháinig roinnt nithe suntasacha tríd an taighde don phlean náisiúnta sin agus beidh mé ag súil go mór le dul tríd sin go léir, mar aon le múnla agus moltaí an phlean ginearálta sa tréimhse gearr amach romhainn. Agus deis agam é a bhreithniú, cuirfear faoi bhráid an Rialtais é agus foilseofar é san fhómhair. I ngeall le forálacha an Achta, tá sé beartaithe go mbeidh an chéad próiseas comhairliúcháin a bhaineann leis na caighdeáin teanga don chéad Acht do comhlachtaí poiblí a reáchtáil go gairid ina dhiaidh sin. Tríd an obair seo go léir, táthar ag súil go gcuirfear le heispéireas Gaeilge an saoránaigh agus daoine eile agus go gcuirfidh sé ar chumas lucht labhartha Gaeilge an teanga a úsáid i ngach gné dá saol, agus iad ag plé leis an Stát, go háirithe.

Tá an próiseas pleanála teanga luaite chomh maith i gceist an Teachta. Tá an próiseas pleanála teanga a d’eascair as Acht na Gaeltachta, 2012 ag teacht faoi bhláth anois. Tá pleananna á gcur i bhfeidhm in gach ceann de na 26 limistéar pleanála teanga Gaeltachta agus i sciar maith de na bailte seirbhíse Gaeltachta. Tá na pobail Ghaeltachta seo dírithe go hiomlán faoi láthair ar chur i bhfeidhm a gcuid pleananna teanga, pleananna a chuirfidh i dtoll a chéile tar éis taighde cuimsitheach a bheith curtha i gcrích maidir le húsáid na Gaeilge i ngach limistéar pleanála teanga chomh maith le próiseas comhairliúcháin poiblí ar fud na Gaeltachta.

Tá na milliún euro in infheistíocht nua á gcur isteach i seirbhísí lárnacha atá á soláthar ag leithéidí Tuismitheoirí na Gaeltachta, Ealaíon na Gaeltachta agus Comhar Naíonraí na Gaeltachta. Anuas air sin, ceadaíodh airgead suntasach d’Údarás na Gaeltachta le déanaí leis an bpróiseas pleanála teanga do na miondíoltóirí sa Ghaeltacht a leathnú amach, dream atá in ann tionchar dearfach a imirt ar nósmhaireacht teanga na bpobal Gaeltachta. Tá athbhreithniú ar bun ar an gcéad deich bplean teanga le tamall anuas agus tá an t-athbhreithniú ar tí a bheith críochnaithe anois.

Tá mé cinnte go bhfuil rudaí le foghlaim againn ón athbhreithniú. Tabharfaidh torthaí an athbhreithnithe deis dúinn an próiseas a mhúnlú do na blianta amach romhainn. Tá an t-eispéireas nua sa Ghaeltacht, freisin. Tá an Teachta Ó Cuív ag lua rudaí tábhachtacha. Tá daoine ag fáiltiú roimh theifigh, bíodh siad ón Úcráin nó ó thíortha eile. Níl aon dabht go bhfuil tionchar teanga ansin, bíodh sé an Ghaeilge nó Béarla atá i gceist. Caithfidh muid machnamh a dhéanamh ar cad atá ar siúl maidir leis an teanga, cén tacaíocht atáimid ag tabhairt do theifigh atá ag teacht isteach, agus cén sórt cosanta atá ansin don teanga, go háirithe an Ghaeilge.

Glacaim leis go bhfuil fáilte roimh theifigh, bíodh siad ag teacht ón Úcráin nó aon áit eile ar domhan a bhfuil cos ar bolg ar siúl inti. Ag an am céanna, níl aon cheist, má thagann mórchuid daoine nach bhfuil Gaeilge acu isteach i gceantar láidir Gaeltachta, go n-imreoidh sé tionchar ar an teanga. Is é sin an méid atá mé ag rá. Is é an t-aon rud a bhí mé ag iarraidh ná go ndéarfaí liom go ndéanfaí staidéar ar cé acu an bhfuil nó nach bhfuil tionchar diúltach á oibriú ar an nGaeilge, agus má tá, céard atá muid dul a dhéanamh faoi? Ní mór dúinn fáil amach i dtosach báire cén tionchar atá leis an mórchuid daoine atá ag teacht isteach i lár na Gaeltachta, sna scoileanna go háirithe, ar an teanga agus ar shealbhú na teanga i measc na ndaoine gur as an áit iad. Má chruthaíonn an staidéar nach bhfuil aon tionchar ann, bíodh sé sin mar atá sé. Níl aon mhaith dúinn, áfach, teacht ar ais faoi cheann 20 bliain agus ag rá gur tháinig teacht na dteifeach go fíorsciobtha thart ar An gCeathrú Rua, mar shampla, agus nár dhearna muid tada faoi, nárbh fhiú gur fhiosraigh muid an raibh sé ag déanamh dochair nó, má bhí sé ag déanamh dochair, agus nárbh fhiú gur chuir muid iarracht isteach chun an dochar a chur amach agus an teanga a choinneáil.

Is é an t-aon rud atá mé ag iarraidh inniu ná go tionsclófar staidéar teangeolaíochta ar an tionchar atá sé seo ag imirt ar an teanga sa Ghaeltacht. Muna bhfuil aon drochthionchar á imirt, bíodh sé sin. Dá mbeadh eastát tithíochta tógtha ar An gCeathrú Rua gan aon srian teanga leis, bheadh an cheist céanna á hárdú inniu agam. Breathnaíonn sé dom, ó thaobh réasúnachta de, go mbeidh tionchar aige mar tá a fhios againn, is é sin, daoine ar nós mé féin a thóg clann le Gaeilge, go n-éiríonn an chomhbhá an-éasca go mór i measc gasúr, agus más é an Bhéarla an teanga coitianta, is sin a bheas in uachtar.

Tuigim nach bhfuil an Teachta Ó Cuív ag piocadh amach na dteifeach agus a rá go bhfuil an milleán orthu. Tá sé ag rá go bhfuil rudaí eile i gceist. Bíonn sé i gcónaí ag caint faoi chúrsaí thithíochta sna Gaeltachtaí agus na heastáit tithíochta agus na srianta atá orthu toisc ceisteanna teanga. Tá na ceisteanna sin in áiteanna eile ar nós Ráth Chairn agus An Rinn. Glacaim leis go bhfuil an Teachta Ó Cuív mar seo agus go bhfuil sé ag iarraidh an rud is fearr a dhéanamh don Ghaeilge, do phobal na Gaeltachta agus do na teifigh freisin. Glacaim leis sin.

Ag an am céanna, tá sé ráite agam, agus ní raibh m’oifigigh róshásta liom, go bhfuil géarchéim sa Ghaeltacht. Tá géarchéim sa Ghaeltacht. Ní féidir an milleán a chur ar theifigh. Má théann an Ghaeilge ón Ghaeltacht, ní teifigh a bheidh cúis leis sin. Tá freagracht orainn go léir an Ghaeilge a úsáid. Tá an fhreagracht sin ar mhuintir na Gaeltachta freisin.

Maidir leis an bpróiseas pleanála teanga, mar a luaigh mé, gheobhaidh mé tuilleadh léargais ar an tionchair mór agus dearfach atá tarlaithe leis na bpleananna sin agus conas atá rudaí ag dul ina leith. Beidh deis againn torthaí an athbhreithnithe ar na gcéad deich bplean a breithniú. Is dócha go mbeidh rudaí ag teacht suas chun dáta freisin cosúil leis na brúnna nua atá ar na ceantair Gaeltachta. Tá brú ar an tír go léir ó thaobh an méid daoine atá ag teacht isteach. Caithfidh mé a admháil gur brú difriúil é sa Ghaeltacht.

Ag an am céanna, tá dúshlán ar leith le lóistín a aimsiú dóibh siúd a thagann chun na tíre seo ag lorg dídine. Tuigim go bhfuil oifigigh ón Roinn leanaí tar éis bualadh le roinnt de na pobail Ghaeltachta atá ag cur fáilte cheana féin roimh theifigh agus iarratasóirí ar chosaint idirnáisiúnta. Tuigim go raibh siad i dteagmháil leis an Teachta Ó Cuív ar an ábhar seo chomh maith. Níl aon dabht ach go mbeidh m’oifigigh ón Roinn i dteagmháil leis an Roinn leanaí maidir leis an gceist seo agus admhaím go bhfuil Teachta Ó Cuív ionraic agus macánta ag ardú na ceiste seo agus go bhfuil eagla air maidir leis an teanga. Is mian liom gach rud a dhéanamh chun an teanga a chosaint. Is féidir le m’oifigigh níos mó plé a dhéanamh le hoifigigh na Roinne leanaí.

I thank the office of the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister of State, Deputy Carroll MacNeill, for facilitating this debate as it is the last Topical Issue debate before the recess and we will not return until September. I wish to raise the important matter of regulation for renters. The Housing (Standards for Rented Houses) Regulations 2019 mandate a proper state of repair and adequate ventilation for all properties regardless of their use as social housing or private rental accommodation. However, we also know that 46% of Irish people report a problem with mould in their homes, and I would suggest the figure is much higher than 46%. The Minister, Deputy Donnelly, expressed concern in January about a specific block of Dublin social housing where 83% of residents lived with mould and damp, and they are diagnosed with asthma 2.4 times more than the Irish average.

Earlier this month, the Irish Independent reported on the heartbreaking story of a Clare woman whose baby had to be rushed to hospital after turning blue from a respiratory infection that developed due to the conditions in emergency accommodation. That is not just the wishy-washy opinion of myself, the mother or anybody else other than a medical professional. Prior to that incident, the mother had come to my office and explained that in the six months from November, she had to attend her GP, Shannondoc and the emergency department with her baby on more than 30 occasions. The GP in particular is the one who made the link with the deterioration in the respiratory health of this baby because he was more than familiar with the decline.

It is important to note that the protections of the Residential Tenancies Act apply to some social housing applicants but not all. They would include those on housing assistance but not those directly letting from the council itself. That is a massive gap and possibly a convenient gap. I know the Ombudsman and the courts system are available but, in most cases, they are difficult to utilise and navigate and it can be an extremely slow process. I am also cognisant that if social housing tenants pursue such pathways, they are potentially putting themselves at risk of being further punished by their local authority, for example, when trying to apply for a transfer. I have come across this. Even on appeal, people have been disallowed and had to apply again with evidence to show the deterioration of the property and, again, it was still disallowed. That is wrong and, I suggest, is an abuse of power.

The question is whether we are in such a bad place when it comes to housing supply that the attitude, in some cases, is that people must be grateful and appreciate whatever roof they have over their head. Standards are not being prioritised, which is a huge concern. I agree the focus should be on supply but I am concerned it is at the expense of the focus on standards in particular.

I commend the Department on extending the housing stock, which I fully support, although I believe it should go much further. I wish it was more achievable for low-income families and wish that more of it served rural communities like those in County Clare. I commend the efforts made. However, I need to ask whether there is a plan in place to ensure the housing stock is fit for human habitation and thereby ensure the provision of adequate accommodation that does not have an impact on people's health.

I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. I am responding on behalf of the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage but I also appear as a constituency TD. I am well aware of the issue of mould, particularly for HAP tenants in the private rental sector. Before coming to the House, such is the importance of the issue to me, I went through my constituency database to pull out those files where I have had to deal with this issue with constituents. I am very well aware of the issue the Deputy has raised, which is in the private rental sector and which we will discuss as distinct from the social housing sector.

From the Department's perspective regarding the standards for rental accommodation, the Housing (Standards for Rented Houses) Regulations 2019 set out in detail the standards of accommodation required, including with regard to structural repair, sanitary facilities, heating, ventilation, natural light and fire safety. These regulations apply to all properties let or available for letting, including social housing. The standards on ventilation cover the potential issue of mould. Where dampness or mould is caused by water ingress, regulation 4 requires that a rented dwelling is maintained in a proper state of structural repair. Where such problems are caused by insufficient ventilation, regulation 8 requires every habitable room to have adequate ventilation and that adequate ventilation for the removal of water vapour is provided from every kitchen and bathroom. The responsibility for the enforcement of the regulations in the private rental sector rests with the relevant local authority. Local authorities also have significant powers of enforcement in cases where non-compliance is found.

Housing for All set an annual target of 25% for the inspection of all private residential tenancies and that has gone up considerably over time. From 2005 to 2017, an average of 20,000 inspections were conducted per annum. The figure was 19,500 in 2017 and went up to more than 40,000 in 2019, the period when Eoghan Murphy was in the Department of housing. However, the pandemic saw the number of inspections fall back to 25,000 in 2020 and to 20,000 in 2021. Nonetheless, despite the fact many local authorities have reported difficulties with staff recruitment and retention in recent years, they conducted an all-time high number of inspections last year of 63,500. However, there is a point I find very interesting and I followed it up with the Department. Despite that increased level of inspections, the Department of housing has not been made aware of any findings of an increase in the incidence of mould in the private rental sector. To my mind, that does not make sense. Either there is not a higher incidence, in which case it is not being reported, or the working group, which genuinely works to address the different issues with the local authorities, believes the issue is being managed sufficiently well by the local authorities for it not to come to the Department's attention, although Deputy Wynne and I both know it remains an issue. It is also possible the local authorities are so used to it that they have perhaps become inured to it as an issue and are not elevating it to the Department. I do know which is the answer.

What I do know, as a constituency TD, is that constituents have raised with me a number of cases in the private rental sector where there has been an inspection and where some cursory works have been done by a landlord but the problem re-emerges, or where the works were not done. The point is that the reinspection is just as important as the inspection. However, I am also aware of the cost of redoing a bathroom from a tax credit perspective or from the landlord's perspective. In the private rental sector, where there is a problem with a bathroom, my experience is that it often involves a single mother with a young child, or those are the cases that come to my attention as a constituency TD. I would simply like to see the bathroom redone, and quickly.

There is a significant capital outlay involved in that. That can only be recouped, I understand, from a tax credit perspective if the property is sold. I would like to incentivise that work being done and I suggest a different tax credit model be put in place so the landlord can do the works and recoup the cost in a reasonable way over time and not in a speculative way if and when the property is sold, which would reduce the amount of stock from the private rental sector as well.

The work the Minister of State has done on this question is highly interesting and I appreciate it. She has even formulated a bit of a solution to the issue of private rental accommodation. A huge amount of inspections have been done by Clare County Council. I rent and my property has been inspected. I was impressed by how quickly the council conducted the work. There is an issue with failure rates and getting landlords to comply, which the Minister of State touched on.

Going back to social housing, our climate is predisposed to dampness but so is the climate of the Netherlands and the Dutch Government in 2015 published guidelines giving clarity to levels of enforcement options for repeat or severe offences. The public prosecutions office may prosecute as an economic offence and give punishments like community service, asset seizure or even imprisonment - I was shocked to read that. Their housing stock is 31% social housing while I understand ours is only 9%.

There are good examples we could rely upon and use in introducing further regulations and protections for renters. The UK has significantly deeper protections. For example, the fitness for human habitation Act 2018 explicitly lists freedom from damp and extends that duty to all landlords without reservation. We could rely on such legislation and work on something here to make properties more habitable. This has a direct effect on our health service, which is an important piece to keep in mind.

Not only that but there is an important effect for the sheer humanity of having appropriate living standards. The Deputy is quite right to raise it.

Under section 34 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, any person who contravenes the regulations I discussed in my previous contribution, fails to comply with an improvement notice or re-lets a house on the private side will be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. If it is repeated or continued, the person would be guilty of a further offence on every day on which the contravention, failure to comply or re-letting continues and for each such offence would be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €400 per day.

A fantastic piece of work was done by the Library and Research Service on mould and minimum standards throughout the EU, the different legal obligations that apply in different countries and identifying the proportions of social housing stock. We fit well within that but the issue is making these things happen.

The Deputy outlined a range of legislative measures that may be there for the private rental section but I suggest there is a practical solution to many of these problems. I do not want to lose housing stock in the private rental sector to social housing tenants and I want standards to be improved. There is something around not vilifying landlords, which I am not suggesting the Deputy does, but rather making sure every measure is taken to ensure, in an effective way, we incentivise investment and get the problems fixed. Good landlords will want to do that quickly.

The Deputy correctly highlighted the social housing side. I can provide her with funding figures because we are tight on time. A huge amount of money has gone into bringing back voids and refurbishments. In 2020, the largest ever voids programme was funded by the Department at a cost of €56 million. It allowed 3,607 properties to be refurbished and made available for allocation. There is continuous improvement in the social housing stock, as well as the private rental sector.

It is important that the Deputy has raised this because it is not acceptable for children to be growing up in those circumstances. I too have seen medical reports linking asthma and respiratory illnesses to mould in social housing. It is not acceptable but we have to look at a breadth of solutions to get practical remedies as quickly as possible.

According to Irish Water-Uisce Éireann's 2023 annual report, published last month, there was €10.57 million paid in bonuses to the company's staff, a 7% increase on 2022. We know from previous annual reports these bonuses are stacked towards the top earners. In 2021, bonuses averaged €6,560 per staff member, yet the top earners received €19,171 each. There was also an increase in hospitality spend from €54,000 in 2022 to €129,000 in 2023.

Last January, Ireland was convicted in the European Court of Justice of having toxins above EU safety levels. The court found drinking water for nearly 240,000 people was at unsafe levels and that the State, through Irish Water, failed in its obligation to rid public and private water supplies of toxins. It faces fines and penalties. Last month the EPA released a report which found no improvement in water quality; in fact there was a net decrease in the biological quality of lakes and rivers.

We are all aware of the ongoing situation in north Cork with dirty water coming out of taps, ruining appliances and putting the cost of buying bottled water on ordinary people. Irish Water built a new €40 million treatment plant which deteriorated water quality, and then employed private contractors to fix the issue, which seems to have led to further deterioration. This has been repeated in many parts of the country.

The fact is Irish Water is committed to a system of outsourcing water to private contractors. I have raised and criticised that system repeatedly in this House. The system is crumbling and is not working. The local authority workers on the ground are holding it together. When people report problems with their water supply to Uisce Éireann, it comes back to them saying the work has been recorded and done. In fact, in the majority of cases, it is local authority staff who do the work.

There were reports earlier this month that Irish Water needed an extra €500 million per year to keep up with the construction costs of new-build housing. I have heard Irish Water has huge unpaid bills to contractors, quarries and local suppliers I met a group of water workers yesterday, one of whom had a contract with Irish Water. The worker went into a hardware shop to make a purchase and was told the deal had been stopped because there were unpaid bills from last August. The council engineer had to use his council card to pay for the supplies. Meanwhile, we have seen the cost of maintenance skyrocket as Irish Water moves away from the old model of permanent, trained local authority water workers to expensive, often inexperienced and undertrained private contractors.

Why are these bonuses being paid, especially to management in Irish Water? Water quality is not improving. In many cases, it is getting worse. We cannot meet environmental or EU water standards and directives. Basic maintenance costs are ballooning because private contractors are far more expensive than local authority workers.

I am hearing locally, from the horse’s mouth, that our water services are being held together by local authority workers who we are in imminent danger of losing from the services because we have not had a referendum on public ownership of water supply and management. These workers will not cross over to Irish Water unless they are able to keep their public service status. If we allow all those workers to leave our water services, along with all their knowledge and experience, which we will never get back, there will be nothing to stop our public water service from going into freefall. Irish Water and any government that stands over its current policy of outsourcing and creeping privatisation will bear responsibility for this.

I have said time and again in the House that this model of outsourcing will not work and is not working. Ask any water worker, anyone living in north Cork or the European Court of Justice.

It is now clear the Government has no intention of holding a referendum on water in its lifetime. I never thought it had that intention anyway but as its members keeps saying it will hold one, I will keep asking. Does the Government plan to hold the referendum it promised on the public ownership and management of water before its term ends?

I thank the Deputy. I am answering on behalf of the Minister for housing, who has responsibility for water and other things. The Deputy is quite right. Uisce Éireann's annual report and financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2023 were laid before the Houses at the end of June 2024. The year 2023 is the first year that Uisce Éireann has been audited, both by its commercial auditor, Deloitte, and the Comptroller and Auditor General. Those new accountability arrangements were provided for in the Water Services Act 2013, as amended. What is very interesting and important is the Minister expects that the public accounts committee, which is the body, working with the Comptroller and Auditor General, that oversees public spending and value for money in that spending for the State, will invite the chief executive officer and the chairperson of Uisce Éireann to give evidence, as is often the case with public bodies, on Uisce Éireann's financial statements in accordance with the statutory provisions in that regard.

Uisce Éireann, the national authority for water services, is a stand-alone publicly owned regulated utility. It was established to operate in a commercially viable manner. It is geared towards making a profit, notwithstanding Uisce Éireann's funding model. However, the profit generated by Uisce Éireann reflects the idea of a regulatory model that provides for a return on capital invested, which is then applied by Uisce Éireann to fund further water and wastewater infrastructure investment. The Deputy highlighted a number of different examples. I will mention Dún Laoghaire, which requires significant capital investment to upgrade its water services. The model is one of trying to generate a profit to further invest in water services.

Uisce Éireann's governing legislation provides for the recruitment of its staff on terms and conditions to be determined by Uisce Éireann. It is not a public service body and its employees are not covered by the definition of public servant. Uisce Éireann is statutorily obliged to have regard to Government policy on the remuneration and conditions of employment of its staff. Government policy on the remuneration and conditions of employment of staff is set out in the code of practice for the governance of State bodies. As a commercial State body, Uisce Éireann is obviously subject to that code.

The Minister does not have a role in setting or agreeing general rates of pay in Uisce Éireann. The only exception to that relates to the remuneration of the chief executive officer. Again, that is provided for in primary legislation, which is obviously subject to the opinions of the House. As such, the matters raised by the Deputy on bonus payments to Uisce Éireann's staff, as well as any other spend in Uisce Éireann, are operational matters for the company. The Minister does not have any function in that regard. However, like everything else, it will be open to the public accounts committee to consider Uisce Éireann's financial statements, when Uisce Éireann representatives give evidence to it in due course. That is of course a matter for the public accounts committee.

I welcome that Uisce Éireann will now be audited. It is about time. Its 2023 accounts will probably not go to the public accounts committee until next year, however, as it will not produce its report until the end of 2024. I am putting on record the issues that are happening within Irish Water. The Minister of State made the point it is not a publicly owned regulated utility. That is quite correct. Workers will not go to Irish Water until it is because that is what they want. They are demanding that the referendum on the public ownership and management of water takes place so they can confidently go to Irish Water as public servants, keep their conditions and a good level of pay, and be guaranteed their jobs. Workers will not go to Irish Water otherwise.

I am putting the Minister of State on notice that in 2026, we will be in an even worse situation than we are now because those workers will go back to the local authorities to look for jobs rather than go to Irish Water. Irish Water does not have the experience of these water workers. They have a huge amount of experience. I talked to one lad yesterday who did two years on the ground, and then went to college for two years to get qualifications in the science of water and all that type of thing for the area he was in. He is seriously thinking of just staying with the local authority. The amount of experience we will lose can be imagined as Irish Water does not have the expertise and is not recruiting.

The reason the hospitality spend has increased, and I just noticed this from talking to water workers yesterday, is that Uisce Éireann is having publicity events or whatever. It is inviting local authority workers to these events and is desperately trying to encourage them to come across to Irish Water using celebrity sports people. There was one in Croke Park recently at which a sportsperson was on the invitation. Local authority workers were offered free meals and free drink to try to encourage them into Uisce Éireann. That is how desperate Irish Water has got. It cannot recruit that experience. I am putting the Government on notice that a serious issue is coming down the line on this.

I appreciate the point the Deputy made. It goes beyond my ability to respond on behalf of the Minister because I do not have the operational knowledge. I certainly hear the Deputy. It is important that she takes her opportunity to put us on notice. It is a different model. That is the one that was chosen for the purposes of trying to invest in future waterworks. There may just be different approaches on that. It has obviously been through the House. I hear what the Deputy is saying and I appreciate being able to listen and understand that today.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this Topical Issue. Much has been said on waste management services, bin collections and the services that are provided. There are very significant issues with them, including complications, contradictions, inefficiencies, and side-by-side collection. A huge number of people do not have a bin service. We have a significant challenge and problem with illegal dumping. It falls on councils to pick up the tab for that. In the meantime, prices are increasing for ordinary workers and families because bin collection services have been privatised, for a very long time in some areas and in the likes of Dublin for a little more than a decade. We have a situation where the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, made recommendations in 2018 for a regulator, which never happened. Subsequent reports by the Dublin City Council working group comparing Dublin with other cities state that Dublin is like the Wild West when it comes to waste collection services and bin services, with multiple competitors literally driving up and down the street beside each other, which is unique.

In addition to that, and the issue we will talk about, is the introduction of the deposit return scheme. We introduced that scheme because the current system is not working. It is failing. We are not meeting recycling targets. We want to increase recycling rates and not have contaminated product, such as what we have in the current system. We want clean product. The deposit return scheme has been introduced, which includes a levy on individual plastic bottles and aluminium cans. Those have now been taken out of the recycling bin system. We now know, thanks to the reporting of Caroline O'Doherty in the Irish Independent and others, that there is a likelihood or prospect that private profits or revenue will be lost by the waste and bin companies because of the introduction of the deposit return scheme. In other words, since the profitable element of collecting aluminium and plastic bottles put in the recycling bin has now been lost to the deposit return scheme, a claim is being made that those lost revenues should be subsidised by the taxpayer or the cost be passed on to customers.

I listened to Irish Waste Management Association representatives at the Oireachtas committee last Tuesday who said it is now inevitable that bin charges will increase to make up for the lost revenues that have gone to the deposit return scheme. That is an absolute insult to injury for people who are engaging in good faith, although there is frustration, with the deposit return scheme. There is a taxation element and a levy associated with that. The idea that they will be charged more for a bin that they are now using less to guarantee the profits of waste companies is insulting.

On behalf of the communities I represent, I want to know what the Government is doing to ensure that bin companies are not given a profit guarantee and that customers are not penalised for doing the right thing.

I would like to thank Deputy O’Rourke for raising this important matter, as I welcome the opportunity to respond to media reports claiming that some waste collection providers may increase household-waste collection charges as a result of the introduction of the deposit return scheme, DRS. The introduction of the DRS for plastic bottles and aluminium cans is a positive consumer-behaviour initiative, similar to the plastic bags initiative, or the ban on harmful cigarette smoke in our workplaces. It does two vital things; it reduces litter and combats the scourge of single-use plastics on the environment. These bottles and cans are a high-volume component of litter. A report commissioned by the Department in 2020, showed that cans and single-use plastics accounted for 675 tonnes of litter per year. The report also indicated that a suitable scheme could reduce the littering of these containers by 95%.

The scheme is going well and we now see return rates regularly exceeding 3 million and cans - I did not know there were that many, but there you go. The scheme has been accepted and over time, I believe it will make a difference to our overall environmental performance. The Government does not believe it would be fair if this success results in the waste collection industry raising the prices of household-waste collection and the Government does not accept that such price raises are inevitable, or merited at this time. There is no reason our current system of kerbside collection cannot work successfully alongside the DRS.

Waste collection charges are affected by many things, including staff, fuel costs, gate fees and commodities prices. While the Government has no role in relation to price setting, there is a need for greater transparency by waste collection providers on pricing for householders and businesses. We need transparency and we need fairness and I note the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, is considering regulatory options for greater transparency around charging, if all waste collectors are not prepared to do this voluntarily, by publishing comprehensive details of their pricing structures on their websites for the information of householders.

The Minister of State and the Department are engaging with the Irish Waste Management Association, IWMA, and other stakeholders to conduct an evidence-based process to quantify what substantive impact, if any, the introduction of the DRS may have on the waste collection system in Ireland over the longer term. This process must be allowed to reach a conclusion. The Department is awaiting detailed data from the waste collection industry to support its position.

I will move on to a more general discussion of household waste collection charges. Private waste collectors operate under a waste collection permit issued by the National Waste Collection Permit Office, NWCPO. These permits include a requirement that waste collection charging systems should incentivise customers to segregate their waste. Therefore, the fees charged for the collection of general residual waste should be higher than the fees charged for the collection of the brown food bin or mixed dry recyclables bin. The terms and conditions of individual waste-collection contracts are matters between the waste collection companies and their customers, subject to compliance with the terms of their NWCPO permit.

With the support of the Department, the NWCPO has engaged a research consultancy to carry out a study on incentivised charging for waste collection. This study, to be completed before the end of 2024, will inform options for providing greater clarity to households and businesses around costs and charging.

On 30 April this year, the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, was appeared before the Oireachtas committee. In response to questions about this, he said that people will have a lower volume and lower weight in their bins, that the majority of waste collectors now charge by weight or volume, rather than a fixed fee, and that the cost of waste removal should come down. This reflects what most people would understand and would have expected in relation to this. At the same time though, the Minister of State must have been aware that his Department had given a commitment to work with stakeholders, to monitor and review the impacts of the DRS and its possible effects on kerbside collection, with a view to ensuring, inter alia, that the DRS does not lead to increased household waste collection costs. The commitment is to make sure costs do not increase and we welcome this. The Minister of State said that he would expect them to decrease.

The Irish Waste Management Association, IWMA, seems to understand that as a protection of its status quo and that it points to a commitment from the Minister of State to a mutually beneficial outcome in relation to this. I welcome the fact that the Minister of State, Deputy MacNeill, is saying that the Government position is that there should not be an increase in costs. The question then is: how will the Government ensure that is that is the case, when the industry itself thinks it has a commitment from Government to the contrary, or at least a subsidy, if there is not to be an increase passed on to customers? At the same time the Minister of State came to the committee on Tuesday and said that it was now inevitable that costs would increase. I appreciate that the Minister of State does not want to negotiate in public here, but customers want to hear an assurance from Government that their waste collection charges will not be increased as a direct result of the introduction of the DRS.

The DRS is a good idea and there is a way in which it has to be managed and rolled out. As the Deputy has heard me say, and as customers will also hear me say, that if the success of the DRS results in the waste collection industry raising the price for households, the Government does not accept that such prices are inevitable, as the Deputy has said, nor merited. I just want to be very clear on this. What individual stakeholders may believe is not what the Government position is, which I am clearly elucidating here and will do so again, for the benefit of the House and everybody else. The Government does not believe it would be fair if this success results in the waste collection industry raising the prices of household waste collection and we absolutely do not accept that such price raises are inevitable or indeed merited at this time. There is no reason, particularly in circumstances of a rising population, our current system of kerbside collection cannot work successfully alongside the DRS. This is a process of adaptation for everybody, but it will work. Waste collection charges are affected by many things, including staff and fuel costs, gate fees and commodities prices. While the Government has no role in relation to price setting, as the Minister of State said, there is a greater need for transparency. I suggest this greater need for transparency exists, irrespective of the introduction, or not, of the DRS. Transparency and fairness are important and the Minister of State, Deputy Smyth, is considering regulatory options for greater transparency, if all waste collectors are not prepared to do this voluntarily by publishing comprehensive details of their pricing structures on their websites for the information of householders. The Minister of State expects voluntary co-operation with making sure that this is a completely transparent process, that people know the exact costs and the input costs into the different models, that there are clearly incentivised structures for waste segregation and that those are clearly communicated to customers. I am saying on the Minister of State's behalf that there is no reason costs need to go up and that there is a good reason for increased transparency.