Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

On the legislation, the committee raised the matter with the Department last autumn. The indications are that it is not likely to go to pre-legislative scrutiny until this autumn, which is some time away yet. It is proposed that we allow the Department to complete its work and that we will consider the matter again when we have received an update on it. This is as much as we can do for now, but we do need to push for the legislation to wind up Caranua to be brought before the House. That legislation is some way off yet. At best, it will be brought forward by the end of this year.

No. 466B is a reply from the Department of Education about school accommodation at Gaelscoil an tSlí Dála in County Laois. At our meeting on 31 March, we agreed to note and publish this item and hold it over for consideration in public. We made a recommendation regarding the use of temporary accommodation in our report on our engagement with the Department and I want to bring this item to members' attention because it really highlights the lack of value for money when schools rent prefabricated units over a protracted period. As set out in the correspondence, the rental cost for one prefab between 2008 and 2020 was €177,000. After studying that brief, one could buy multiple prefabs for €177,000. These are single rooms. Another cost €152,000. Separately, three prefabs were bought outright and given that the average cost of those three was €49,000, three or four could have been purchased for the cost of each that was rented. These cost a substantial amount. A table came with this correspondence and if one looks at prefab 1, rented in 2005, and prefab 2, rented in 2007, the rent came to €249,622. In 2010, a new prefab, which was superior in quality, was bought for €38,000. We must take it from this that in 2005, it would have been cheaper and may only have been €30,000. Even assuming that it was €38,000, there is a significant disparity in cost and it shows the insanity of the rental and lease of prefabs over a long period.

Unfortunately, Gaelscoil an tSlí Dála is still in the same situation in that it is still housed in a number of prefabs. The Gaelscoil has been successful. It has 48 pupils in a rural area, servicing south Laois and north Tipperary but it needs permanent accommodation. It was given permanent status three years ago. It is in a position now where it has the potential of a permanent site. We might write back to the Department to highlight that the school is in urgent need of that accommodation because the original prefabs that were rented are not in good condition. We need to move on with that. I propose, with the committee's agreement, that we write back and request that in view of the money spent on rental compared with purchase of prefabs, that we would now move, as there is potential for a permanent site, to providing a new building on that site. Is that agreed? Agreed.

No. 476B from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, dated 24 March 2021, provides further information requested by the committee about the practice of "bond surrenders" by local authorities. At our meeting of 31 March, we agreed to note and publish this item and held it over for consideration in public. We have forwarded the response to the correspondent who raised the matter and we also agreed that the correspondent would submit related information, which they had offered to the committee, and sought their consent to forward it to the Department for consideration.

The following related correspondence was received since our previous meeting. No. 544B from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, dated 30 April 2021, providing further information requested by the committee in relation to the practice known as "bond surrender". The Department has committed to reporting on the extent of the use of bond surrender by local authorities and will report back to the committee on this matter. Regarding the difficulties identified by local authorities, I propose that we request that the Department incorporate potential solutions in the report it is planning to compile on the issue and provide the committee with a copy of the report. I also propose that we also forward this item to the correspondent who raised the matter and note and publish it. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We received two letters on that, Nos. 476 and 544, and what concerned me about it was that even with a template set out in appendix 1, which states that while the Department is not aware of any mechanism that would compel a developer to renew a bond, the standardised template for bonds issued through the County and City Management Association in 2018 as best practice includes a clause that requires a developer to provide six months notice to a local authority prior to the expiration of a bond. It states that failure to provide this notice would result in the bond remaining in full force until such time as the six months notice is given. In this way, the bond cannot expire without the knowledge of the local authority. That sounds good but I have had a number of bad experiences in trying to deal with this issue of bonds. That does not stop the bond from expiring, especially if it is an insurance bond. Developers simply have to notify the local authority and if they fail to do it, that is one opt-out clause, and they can also allow the bond to lapse and simply notify the local authority of their intention to do so. Deputy Catherine Murphy raised this. We should be concerned about the fact that we do not have a proper template in place for dealing with this issue of bonds by developers of housing estates.