Vol. 284 No. 4
asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware that the County Manager has informed members of Galway County Council that no new works can be undertaken by the council in 1975 due to the inadequate capital allocation for major water supply and sewerage schemes; and if he will increase the allocation already made.
6.
asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware that contract documents are being prepared by Galway County Council for water supply and sewerage schemes estimated at a cost of £930,800; and if, in view of this, he will increase the capital allocation for these works from £122,000, as £105,000 of this amount had already been expended.
7.
asked the Minister for Local Government if he has received a request for an increased capital allocation for sanitary services works from Galway County Council; and, if so, when a decision will be made on the matter.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 5, 6 and 7 together.
I would remind the Deputy that the provision of capital for a sanitary services scheme is considered only when such a scheme has been fully approved and is ready to commence and a loan has been sanctioned. This is not the case in any of the schemes making up to total of £930,800 referred to.
The capital allocation for 1975 notified to Galway County Council on 16th May relates to expenditure on schemes which had been fully approved and for which loans had been sanctioned at the date of allocation.
I have received a request from Galway County Council for an additional allocation. The matter is under consideration, but the question of making such an allocation has to take into account the total resources available from time to time and the competing needs of all areas.
May I ask if in determining the capital allocation to Galway County Council the Department took into consideration the fact that sanction had issued for loans for the Galway city eastern environs water scheme and the Clifden water scheme and whether these two schemes were included as being loan-sanctioned at the time the allocation was made?
All matters relating to this were taken into consideration including the matters to which the Deputy has referred.
These two loans were taken as having been sanctioned at that time?
All matters were taken into consideration.
Is the Minister aware that the officials have expressed the view to Galway county councillors that the form which they are required to complete before the financial year starts in submitting schemes for loan sanction does not provide for schemes that can be sanctioned, say, between 1st January and the date on which the circular issued? In this case the circular was sent out by the Department on 16th May and received by Galway County Council on 20th May. That would not have been included in the application because it had not been sanctioned at the time that Galway County Council made the application. That was before January 1st, but these loans were sanctioned subsequently.
If Deputies have any special comments to make they should make them either to the Department of Local Government or to the council and report to the Department of Local Government.
Could I confirm that the Minister is saying that the two loans I have mentioned were in fact taken as being sanctioned when the capital allocation was being made?
The Deputy may take it that I said that all matters affecting water schemes in Galway were taken into account when this decision was made.
8.
asked the Minister for Local Government if he will make funds available to allow Dublin County Council to proceed with the following schemes which have had to be deferred because of the reduction made by his Department in the estimate prepared by the County Council engineers: North Dublin water supply infill scheme, cottage sewerage programme, Blanchards-town water supply—stage 2, Baskin cottages sewerage, Garristown sewerage, Ballyboughal sewerage, Swords treatment works and Donabate sewerage.
I have already provided some £3,031,000 towards the financing of the Dublin County Council's water and sewerage programmes in the current year. Of this amount £2,776,000 was related to expenditure out of loans which had been sanctioned at the date the allocations were notified, £31,000 related to expenditure on the county council's small schemes programme, and £224,000 related to expenditure on a number of new schemes which were urgently needed to service new housing development. The City and County Manager has consulted my Department regarding the possibility of financing further schemes in the current year and the matter is under examination. It should not be forgotten, however, that sanitary services capital allocations to Dublin County Council have been very substantially increased since 1972-73 and that there must be a limit to the number of schemes which can be undertaken contemporaneously.
The Minister, as expected, told us what money he had given. I listed in the question the schemes which the county manager has advised us have to be deferred for the coming year and I should like to know if the Minister has any comment to make on that list of schemes, some of which are very urgent and some of which are half way completed?
I do not think anybody, even if he were a fool, would imagine that it is possible to complete all the schemes that need to be done here in one year. It was never intended that that should be so and it is not possible to do it. In case Deputy Burke has forgotten I should like to remind him that in the year 1972-73 Dublin County Council received for major schemes £1,596,720; in 1973-74, £2,442,010: in 1974, £2,278,300 and in 1975, £3 million and £31,000 for small schemes. Dublin County Council are doing pretty well. There is not an endless amount of money and they are getting a fair share of what is available.
It was never suggested that there was an endless amount of money. I listed some schemes that had gone to contract stage but for which the contract had to be deferred and I listed schemes where pipes had been laid but could not be completed because the necessary money was not being provided. I should like to ask the Minister to reconsider these schemes urgently. The question has been put to him by the county manager and the matter is being fought at council level. About two months ago the Minister told me I was talking through my hat over the same question.
The Deputy may not embark upon a speech.
These are urgent schemes that affect the people in north County Dublin.
I said Deputy Burke was talking through his hat when he said that Dublin County Council had not enough money for housing when, in fact, they got £12½ million this year. With regard to the question of the water and sewerage schemes Deputy Burke must be aware that a number of schemes were started by Dublin County Council without going through the usual preliminary arrangements. The Deputy cannot blame the Department for not having the money available for some of the schemes which were started without the normal sanction. If the money can be made available Dublin County Council will get extra money but, as it stands they have got a fairly sizeable amount, a big improvement on previous years and I am afraid at present I cannot promise them more money.
I will allow Deputy Burke one more brief supplementary question.
This is an important matter for the people of north county Dublin.
The Deputy may not embark upon an argument or a speech; he should come forth with a question.
The Minister said that if the money was needed he would give it and then he said he could not give anything more this year. Was I mistaken in that?
The Deputy was. I said if the money was available I would be glad to make extra money available to Dublin County Council but as of now there is no extra money available.
The Minister said the county council had gone ahead with some schemes without his sanction but he is a great one to tell local authorities to go ahead on their own initiative. Would the Minister list the schemes the county council has proceeded with without his authority?
If the Deputy puts down a question to that effect I will be glad to answer it.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.
