The speech of the Minister in opening this debate shows the scale and range of the activities of the Department of the Environment. The Department are involved in the implementation of many of the main planks of the policies of the Government as enshrined in our election manifesto. Rates on domestic and certain other properties have been abolished and alternative arrangements have been devised to finance the operations of local authorities. Road tax on private cars up to 16 horse power and on all motor cycles has gone. The scheme of £1,000 grants and the improved housing loans scheme are putting new life into the private housing sector. The substantially increased house improvement grants and the broadening of the field of eligibility for those grants are providing a major spurt to this important facet of our housing programme. The additional financial allocations provided by the Government for roads, water and sewerage schemes, environmental works, and so on, are providing the extra jobs to which the Government are so much committed.
In this contribution to the debate on the Environment Estimate I shall for the most part be concentrating on the particular areas of the Department's operations with which I am concerned. To that extent, what I have to say will be selective. This may be all to the good. The Minister in opening this debate demonstrated the range and scope of the activities of the Department of the Environment. He necessarily had to curtail his review of certain aspects of what the Department do. I hope to deal somewhat more extensively with a number of important items.
Deputy Tully expressed concern that the Government's action on rates would erode local authority powers. This fear is entirely unfounded. In his opening speech the Minister made it clear that the arrangements proposed would not interfere in any way with the discretion of local authorities to determine priorities within the rate in the £ they strike. Local authorities will continue to exercise their best judgment on local priorities.
The Government since taking office have demonstrated the sincerity of their intentions on job-creation. No-where has this been more apparent than in the building and construction industry. The prosperity of the industry is vital for the economy as a whole. The chronic unemployment situation inherited from the previous Government was worst of all in the building sector. In the early part of 1977 the number of unemployed building workers reached a peak more than twice the level for 1973. Once the new Government had taken office action was speedily taken to create jobs in building and construction.
Additional financial allocations were made last July for roads, water supply and sewerage schemes, and for environmental works, local improvement schemes, as well. This approach has been reaffirmed by the further substantial allocations announced in the budget for 1978. Opposition Deputies like to give the impression that the Government's measures on job-creation simply look good on paper but have no effect whatever on the ground. Unfortunately if they say this often enough, some people will be foolish enough to believe them. This is why we on the Government side have to keep on putting the record straight.
I am concerned in this debate with the job-creation record for the area for which I have responsibility, that is, the building and construction industry. The measures taken by the Government specifically to create jobs in building and construction have meant the creation of 1,670 new jobs up to the end of December 1977. The vast bulk of these jobs were in areas for which the Minister for the Environment is responsible. Road works alone accounted for 700 workers. There are two points I should like to emphasise here. First, all these 1,670 jobs are direct on-site jobs. Consequently, they do not reflect the full extent of the employment created.
There has been estimated spin-off employment in the building materials industry and elsewhere of about 500. Secondly for those of a doubting disposition these figures are for persons actually working. They are based on returns supplied by local authorities.
Apart from the specific job-creation measures, other steps taken by the Government have given a boost to employment. Here I refer particularly to the introduction of the £1,000 grant for the first-time owner occupiers of new houses and the increased loan and income limits for housing loans from local authorities. The resulting increase in employment on house-building cannot be quantified in detail. Past experience indicates that the increased activity in the private housing sector has meant about an extra 1,000 jobs by the end of December last.
The initiatives of the Government in the early weeks of office were, of course, only the beginning of the Government's job-creation programme for the building and construction industry. The real impact will be seen this year. Public capital expenditure allocations affecting the building and construction industry in 1978 amount to £458 million, an increase of £86 million or 23 per cent on 1977.
This represents a substantial increase in real terms. It is expected that it may be sufficient to create up to 5,000 further direct jobs. As with the additional jobs created in 1977, careful records of the new jobs will be kept. Any critics of the programme can rest easy in the knowledge that when we claim jobs have been created we are speaking of people actually working and not simply of jobs on paper. While remaining sensitive about the job-creation programme and consequently ready at all times to defend it against ill-informed criticism, the Government are not foolish enough to believe that the programme of itself is solving the unemployment problem. What has been done shows a commitment to fighting unemployment in the building and construction industry. By making a start we are creating an atmosphere of confidence in the private sector. Evidence of confidence being restored has been there since the autumn of last year. I am sure the Government's belief is justified and will be vindicated by the increased building and construction output this year. On the basis of the information available to date, output this year will top the £900 million mark. This would see the industry back on the road to prosperity.
When speaking about the construction industry Deputy Keating mentioned the position along East Wall in Dublin. He told the House that children living in that area must play on the railway line. My information is that children do not have to play on the railway. I am told that immediately beside this area Fairview Park is located, a large and well laid out open space. The well laid out Clontarf promenade is also adjacent to East Wall.
The Supplementary Estimate to be moved at the conclusion of this debate provides £4.2 million for two schemes to stimulate employment among young persons. The two schemes involved were put forward by the Employment Action Team set up by the Government to devise schemes for youth employment. The major scheme is for a programme of environmental improvement schemes to be carried out by local authorities. I would not like persons to believe that this is, as one Deputy said, a "sham". This is an entirely new scheme. The programme is expected to provide employment for young workers equivalent to 1,000 jobs of one year's duration. Secondly, the works to be undertaken will have considerable environmental, recreational and amenity value to the community. The second scheme is somewhat more modest in its employment potential. It envisages the employment by local authorities of 150 first-year apprentices to construction. Nevertheless, it will afford an opportunity to young persons to learn worth-while trades like carpentry, plumbing, plastering, blocklaying and so on to meet the problem of shortage of certain skilled tradesmen in the construction industry.
The Minister when introducing this estimate dealt at some length with the scheme of £1,000 grants for first-time owner occupiers of new houses. I do not intend to go over the same ground. I would however, like to comment briefly on some recent spurious suggestions that, because all or most of the grants applied for have not already been paid, the scheme is of no benefit. This puerile attempt to discredit the scheme cannot succeed. Everybody knows that, on average, it takes six to 12 months to complete a house. The grant is payable only on completion and occupation of the house. Bearing in mind that the earliest starting date under the scheme was 26 May 1977 it is only from now on that the grants will be maturing for payment in any number. I know that the existence of a decent grant has been a tremendous help to young couples in buying their own homes. In many cases it has meant the difference between being able to buy a house around the time of their marriage and having to wait to scrape together a deposit. The trouble about waiting is that additional savings can very easily be eaten up by higher prices. The result then is that many couples would end up never being able to achieve the goal of owning their own house. The grant can be approved as soon as purchase has been agreed or before building commences, as the case may be. By authorising the payment of the grant direct to their bank account, applicants will often be facilitated by the bank as far as a deposit or building finance is concerned. The same applies in relation to bridging loans while people are waiting to have local authority loans approved.
There is always a danger that the additional demand for new houses created by the Government's measure, combined with the additional money being injected into the private house industry, could result in increased prices of houses. Such a development would ultimately tend to defeat the very purpose of the Government's measures. I appreciate that new house costs will have to increase to reflect increased labour and material costs. We must do everything possible to ensure that prices are not increased further to facilitate excessive profit taking by builders, developers or speculators by exploiting what is a basic human need. This is why I am very anxious to ensure that we have an effective form of control on the prices of grant-type houses and flats. These dwellings are benefiting substantially from State aids, whether by way of grants, loans or stamp duty exemption. It is only just that the prices charged should be seen to be reasonable.
As the Minister mentioned, the system of certificates of reasonable value was extended last July to cover all grant-type houses and flats built for sale. It was made a condition of payment of these grants that the builder of a house or flat should have obtained a certificate of reasonable value in respect of the price being charged. Since taking up office I have studied the operation of these controls. I am satisfied that the method of assessment of reasonable value for the purpose of issuing certificates is a fair one and that it strikes the right balance between the interests of both builders and purchasers. It is inevitable that there are some builders who do not welcome any form of control on house prices. It is, however, clear that if they are building houses which are benefiting from public funds they must accept some degree of control. Many purchasers although embarking on the major financial transaction of their lives very often have little experience of house prices and no knowledge of building costs. It must be comforting to them to know that a particular price has been accepted by the Department as representing reasonable value. The issue of a certificate also means that the plans and specification comply with the Department's standards. It ensures that inspections will be carried out to check that the houses or flats are not being built to an inferior standard. This is of particular importance in the case of any dwelling which is not guaranteed. I will be returning to this point again.
I mentioned earlier the fact that the scope of the controls had been extended to take in grant-type flats. I am pleased to say that we have just recently issued the first certificates of reasonable value in respect of a flat development. First-time purchasers of these flats will now be eligible for the £1,000 grant and they will all qualify for stamp duty exemption. I trust that this refutes allegations and suggestions which have come from certain quarters that the Department are not serious about giving CRVs and consequently grants for flats. As far as I am concerned there is no bias whatever against flats or in favour of houses. I think that flats have an important role in the private building sector particularly in the larger urban areas. There are a number of other flat projects for which applications have been received and examination of these is proceeding as quickly as possible. These will also be considered on their merits. Certificates will issue if they are regarded as representing reasonable value at the prices proposed.
Over the past three years reductions in prices of houses for which CRVs were originally sought amounted to more than £1½ million. This is an in-controvertible reply to anyone who questions the value of the controls. It is, however, by no means a full measure of the benefits to house purchasers. Indeed it could be said that they have most effect before the builder submits his price for examination. I think it would be generally agreed that the system has been responsible for a much more logical and disciplined approach to pricing on the part of builders than was the case previously.
Experience has also shown that there are a number of areas where the existing system should be tightened up. It is intended to do so in the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1977, which, as Deputies are aware, has already been introduced by long and short titles. These amendments to section 35 of the Housing Act, 1966, will not involve any fundamental change in the operation of the scheme. Rather they will be aimed at preventing any abuses of the system such as builders misleading purchasers or taking unfair advantage of them under price variation clauses.
Earlier I referred to standards of building in the context of CRVs. I would now like to expand on this aspect in the light of the new structural guarantee scheme which was referred to earlier by Deputy Tully. It has long been recognised both among house builders and among the general public that there was a need for some system of guarantees on privately built houses and flats. This need arose from the point of view of both protecting the purchaser against irresponsible builders and faulty workmanship and protecting the reputation of house builders in general. The unscrupulous activities of a small number of dishonest operators which have been highlighted from time to time serve to reinforce this conviction.
Therefore it is clear that the Department and the Construction Industry Federation as the representative of house builders had a mutual interest in developing a satisfactory guarantee scheme. Such a scheme has been in operation since the beginning of this year and it is a tribute to the results of close co-operation in pursuit of a common objective. I am confident that this spirit of co-operation will result in worth-while benefits to house purchasers.
The scheme as announced last January provides for the preparation by the guarantee company of a register of builders who are qualified to participate in the scheme. Before being admitted to the register, builders' financial and technical capacity to build houses or flats of a good standard is vetted. I understand that the level of interest already shown by builders is very encouraging and that a total of 176 building firms had been registered by 22 February 1978. I would expect that many people providing new houses for themselves will now, before committing themselves to a contract for the purchase or erection of a house, check whether their builder is registered under the guarantee scheme. Similarly, it is to be hoped that the various lending agencies will give all possible support to the scheme. This is most important.
It should be clearly understood that the Department accept no responsibility for any guarantee given by the company. Nevertheless the Department have, through their housing inspectorate, a vital role in the operation of the scheme. Each house for which a guarantee is sought will be inspected at three stages—foundation, roofing and completion—before a guarantee certificate is issued. The Department will monitor closely the operation of the scheme by the attendance of two officers as observers at all meetings of the company.
The guarantee covers any major structural defects arising within a six-year period after completion. It is the builder's responsibility in the first instance to make good any structural defects. In the event of default the guarantee company will honour the guarantee and may remove the builder from the register. I want to stress that this scheme will be fully reviewed after two years of operation to see if it is fulfilling the need for which it was established. If it is, then perhaps we can talk about expanding its scope— for instance, to cover a greater range of defects or to extend the six-year time limit. But if, on the other hand, it is not proving satisfactory we will have no alternative but to consider other solutions.
Before departing from the realm of private housing, I should like to refer to the present indications of the vastly increased activity generated by the house improvement grants scheme announced last December. This is evident from a look at the volume of applications coming into the Department.
In the period 1 January to the end of February 1978 we received 5,200 applications for reconstruction and water/sewerage grants whereas in the same period last year only 2,778 applications were received. It was essential that the former Government's tendency not to encourage the conservation and improvement of existing houses should be halted. Our housing stock is an enormously important national asset and not to encourage the conservation of such an asset was surely economic lunacy. It was bad business and bad management. In January 1977 instead of increasing the construction, water and sewerage grants to allow for rapidly increasing costs the Government decided to restrict eligibility for reconstruction grants to houses which complied with certain valuation limits. No credible reason for this apparently illogical step was ever given. It certainly never made sense to me. What it did point to was a total lack of any comprehensive housing policy because conservation and improvement of existing houses must form a vital plank of any such policy.
As with improvement grants generally, the maximum amount payable by the Department to local authorities for recoupment of grants in respect of the adaptation of houses to facilitate occupants suffering from physical handicap or acute mental illness remained inadequate. The previous maximum of £400 had become totally divorced from the real cost of these alterations. I am particularly pleased that this figure has now been trebled. I am having the position about essential repair grants reviewed at the moment and I hope that, as with the reconstruction and water and sewerage grants, the maximum amount payable by the Department for these works will be increased. This matter was mentioned by Deputy Deasy yesterday when he inquired about section 30 grants for essential repairs to houses.
As regards road safety which was mentioned by previous speakers, apart from the direct investment in our roads system there are other important matters related to overall road policy on which I should like to touch. Even though I dealt with some of them in the recent budget debate they are serious enough to merit adverting to them again. Deputies, and I am sure the public at large are aware of the continuing intolerable level of road accidents. Certain aspects of this deplorable situation deserve to be highlighted.
Provisional figures show that 576 people were killed and 8,099 injured on our roads in 1977. The figure for deaths is 51 more than the total for 1976, an increase of almost 10 per cent. The increase in deaths recorded in the Dublin Garda Metropolitan area was almost 50 per cent. In other words, last year an average of some 24 people suffered either death or injury in road accidents every single day of the year. Is this not an alarming state of affairs for such a small country with such a relatively small population? It is impossible to assess the grief and pain to which these accidents give rise, and my sympathy goes to all concerned. A secondary, but nevertheless very disturbing, feature is the economic consequences of accidents. In terms of medical services, Garda costs, damage to property and loss of output, it has been estimated at some £40 million in 1976 by An Foras Forbartha. With more people killed and injured during 1977 and allowing for increased costs, the bill for road accidents will be even more staggering. If resources of this magnitude could be diverted to job creation purposes what an impact it would make on the economy. I would appeal earnestly to all road users—motorists, cyclists and pedestrians—to exercise more care on the roads and to have a little more consideration for others. This would help in no small way to achieve a worth-while reduction in the accident toll.
Apart from the contribution which could be made by a sensible attitude on the part of all road users, there are other factors which help significantly in lessening the level of carnage on the roads. Over half the drivers on our roads are persons who had to undergo a driving test before obtaining a full licence. I have no doubt that the knowledge and skill acquired to undergo the test has kept a bad accident situation from becoming even worse. I would like to take the opportunity to remind all drivers who have undergone and passed a test to strive at all times to drive to the same standard. While speaking of the test, there have been suggestions from time to time that a proportion at least of persons taking the test are deliberately failed as a matter of policy. This is completely untrue. The test standards are set at a realistic level and uniformly applied. The emphasis is on ensuring that only those who can drive normally are issued with a full licence. With a big increase in the number of applications for the test last year there has been a longer waiting period in most areas. However, extra testers are now being recruited to cope with this demand.
Periodic surveys over the past few years have shown that upwards of 80 per cent of cars have some defect or other. Some are seriously defective. It has to be said that this is a sad reflection on many vehicle owners. It shows a total lack of responsibility, given the daily reminders of road accidents. Lights, brakes, tyres and steering are the items most commonly found defective. I appeal to all motorists in their own interests and in the interests of the public generally to have regular and effective checks carried out on their vehicles.
In this general context I wish to acknowledge again the considerable effort being made by the Garda, An Foras Forbartha and the National Road Safety Association in the interests of road safety. I will, of course, support their efforts to the fullest possible extent. This year, as subhead L of the Estimate we are discussing shows, we will be spending almost £250,000 on the promotion of road safety through the National Road Safety Association. The programme of the association for 1978 includes the continued expansion of the national cycling training scheme and the junior school warden scheme, the production of a further series of public service filmlets for television, continued publicity on reflective armbands and safety belts, and a series of general road safety posters.
I should also acknowledge the contribution being made by local authorities in the field of road safety. The guidelines issued by the Department to the authorities recommend that, in the selection of projects to be carried out by them under their annual road programmes, they should take positive steps to upgrade road safety design standards for all road users. They could do this, for example, by the provision of non-skid surfaces, the elimination of accident black spots, the improvement of substandard junctions, the provision of pedestrian facilities and the improvement of the standard of public lighting generally.
The number of motor vehicles on our roads continues to grow. In 1977 for example, there were nearly 750,000. With this level of traffic one of the most pressing problems facing urban authorities is that of traffic congestion. It remains the responsibility of each local authority to determine the priorities in the expenditure of the funds made available to them by way of block grants. Incidentally these grants have been increased this year by over £1 million. In the allocation of the block grants certain guidelines have been laid down in relation to the selection of projects which include the installation of co-ordinated signal systems, one-way systems and other measures for the proper management of the road systems, including the operation of a traffic warden service. The enforcement of parking controls is in general the responsibility of the Garda, under whose aegis traffic wardens operate in Dublin, Cork, Athlone and Killarney. A number of local authorities—Dundalk, Ennis, Naas and Tullamore Urban District Councils and Galway and Limerick Corporations—have already availed of the Local Authorities (Traffic Wardens) Act, 1974, to employ traffic wardens.
Deputy Deasy yesterday advocated a more extensive use of traffic wardens by local authorities as a means of easing the flow of traffic in towns. I am glad to say that, in addition to the towns I mentioned, a number of other local authorities are considering the implementation of the Act. The Act empowers the local authority to provide a warden service for another authority. This procedure is being used by, for example, Tipperary (South Riding) County Council who have employed wardens and will deploy them as necessary initially in Clonmel and then throughout the county. This is an arrangement which other county councils could consider. I should like to congratulate the authorities who have taken the initiative and operated this scheme.
As regards vehicle registration, I should like to say that progress in the computerisation of vehicle registration has been significantly faster than had been anticipated due to the abolition of road tax on cars not exceeding 16 horse power and on all motor cycles. At present details of about 200,000 vehicles, from the total vehicle population of about 750,000, are on computer files. It is now expected that the national vehicle file on computer will be completed by about the end of 1979. The computerised records will be directly available to the Garda on a 24-hour seven days a week basis. These records will be of assistance to the Garda in the administration of the road traffic law and in the areas of crime detection and security. The records will also facilitate action on evasion of payment of vehicle excise duty.
As a Deputy representing a predominantly rural area I have always been interested in the group water scheme movement. Piped water supplies are a basic need for the economic and social development of rural areas. The progressive farmer needs piped water to ensure hygiene on the farm, to secure higher yields of good quality milk and to promote the healthy development of livestock. Without piped water rural families are faced with the drudgery of drawing water to the house each day of the week. Some 15 years or so ago a vigorous programme commenced to bring piped water to rural houses and associated farms. It was not economically feasible for county councils to undertake this programme on their own. For this reason special grants were instituted to encourage rural communities to undertake private co-operative water schemes, more commonly known as group schemes. These schemes have been an outstanding success and the figures speak for themselves. To date, piped water has been installed in nearly 57,000 houses by group schemes. Work is in progress on schemes to serve 8,000 more houses. Some 200 further schemes are designed to serve an additional 8,400 houses. Group schemes have given an estimated 40,000 farms access to a piped water supply.
The success of group schemes is due, first and foremost, to the tremendous work done on a completely voluntary basis by scheme promoters and local committees throughout the country. The county councils play a vital role in stimulating group schemes actively by developing sources and laying pipes and main trunk lines to suitable take-off points for local group schemes and by providing financial and technical assistance. It is right to mention the Department's group scheme inspectors who are available to advise and assist groups from the early stages right through to the completion of the water schemes involved. These inspectors are doing a tremendous job on the ground.
Group schemes started from small beginnings. In the early 1960s the typical scheme served 30 houses or fewer. The number of houses provided with a domestic piped water supply by way of group schemes was just in excess of 1,000 annually. Today individual group schemes may serve up to 600 houses. The number of houses served each year is approaching the 8,000 mark. Group schemes are now really big business. Last year public and private investment in group schemes is estimated to have exceeded £4 million.
Notwithstanding these successes, far too many rural dwellings and farms are still denied access to piped water. Schemes are becoming more expensive because of rising wages and material costs. Schemes have increasingly to be undertaken in difficult terrain. It was against this background that the Government decided to increase the maximum grant for a domestic water supply installed through a group scheme from £200 to £300 per house for schemes commenced on or after 1 November 1977. The grant of up to £200 will continue to be paid for each potential farm supply catered for by a group scheme. The result is very substantial increases to £3.1 million in the provision for the payments of group grants in 1978. I feel sure that these measures will maintain the impetus of the group scheme movement towards the ultimate goal of piped water for every home. What I have said about the campaign to provide rural dwellers with the basic amenity of a piped water supply should provide a measure of assurance to Deputy Deasy, who spoke yesterday about the plight of those without a piped water supply.
The wide scope of the local government superannuation code may not be generally appreciated. The code applies to both officers and manual workers employed by local authorities. The total number of pensionable employees is more than 35,000. In addition the code covers approximately 30,000 health board employees, 6,000 employees of vocational education committees, 1,000 employees of committees of agriculture and 3,000 employees of other bodies, such as corporate bodies established under both health and local government legislation. In all the superannuation provisions provide for no less than 75,000 employees. The types of people covered include a wide range of persons—for example, doctors, engineers, road workers, nurses, administrators, general workers, agricultural instructors and so on. The total cost of the benefits now being paid to pensioners by the bodies in question is estimated at about £18 million a year. The local government superannuation code may well be exceptional in the extent and range of its coverage. It is also unique in so far as no other part of the statutory functions of the Minister involves direct responsibility for such a wide diversity of bodies.
The figures I have given put in perspective the background to the changes in superannuation conditions to which the Minister referred in his opening speech. The changes follow from a report submitted in June 1977 by a working party set up by the previous Government. The working party comprises representatives of both staff and management interests as well as officers of the Departments of the Environment, the Public Service and Health. In accordance with the working party's recommendations, most of the changes and conditions form part of an inclusive package for which individual employees may exercise an option up to 31 May next. Any employee who does not opt to have the new conditions applied to him has the right to remain under the superannuation conditions to which he was subject immediately prior to 27 May 1977, which is the effective date for the working party's recommendations generally. The changes are being brought into effect in advance of enabling legislation. It was considered essential to do this. Otherwise there would inevitably have been a considerable time lag in introducing the new conditions. There would be resultant hardship both for existing employees coming to retirement and for dependants of former employees. I assure the House that it is the intention to press ahead as quickly as possible with new legislation under which statutory effect will be given to the new conditions.
A manual worker who opts for the new arrangements may join a widows' and orphans' pension scheme similar to the scheme which has been in operation for the officer grades for some years. This is a progressive step which will enable manual workers to make contingency provisions for their dependants by means of a relatively small contribution from their incomes. Manual workers in the local service have maintained for some years that they should have the same rights as officers in relation to a scheme of this kind. I am pleased that their justifiable grievance in this respect is now being met. I am also glad that the distinction which existed between officers and manual workers in regard to the payment of a lump sum on retirement is now being removed. In future a manual worker will be able to qualify on retirement for a lump sum. That sum, as in the case of an officer, can range up to one-and-a-half times his annual pay.
Other changes of note relating to manual workers include the removal of certain restrictions in the reckoning of service for pension purposes, added years for a worker who is forced to retire prematurely because of permanent infirmity, and the ability to restore for pension purposes service given in past years which as a result of options made at the time was not pensionable. The new arrangements provide that in the case of service given after 27 May 1977 by a manual worker both his rate of superannuation contributions and his rate of pension accrual will take into account his entitlement to social welfare benefits. This new arrangement applies only to manual workers who are fully insured under the Social Welfare Acts. Its effect is to give combined local authority and social welfare pensions of not less than half pay after 40 years service. The thinking behind this new arrangement is that pension entitlement should be viewed as a whole. It does not matter whether the pensions are paid by the State through the social welfare system or by the employer provided reasonable provision is made overall.
A number of important improvements are being made in the superannuation conditions of local authority officers. Unlike a manual worker who could always qualify for his full superannuation entitlement after 40 years service, an officer could not qualify for full lump sum until he had 45 years service. An officer can now qualify under the new conditions for full lump sum after 40 years service.
