I have no intention of delaying the House. The last day I briefly referred to the major responsibilities of the Minister, irrespective of the title of his Department, for providing houses and providing a proper road system. Since I spoke on Thursday evening I had the opportunity of looking in more depth at the trend of building and housing costs, the availability of loans and so on, which is a major and very important part of the Minister's responsibilities. In light of the written reply which the Minister gave to my colleague, Deputy Fitzpatrick, yesterday the country will be shocked to see the enormous increase in housing costs.
Vote 29: Environment (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £201,684,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of December 1978, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for the Environment, including grants to Local Authorities, grants and other expenses in connection with housing, and miscellaneous schemes and grants including a grant-in-aid.
—(Minister for the Environment.)
Did the Deputy see the increases in costs for 1976-1977? The Deputy should look at them.
If the Minister will allow me to make my case he will have ample opportunity to reply.
The Deputy will continue without interruption.
It has been suggested by various commentators in recent weeks and it has been stated by some of my colleagues that, so far as they could ascertain, the price of houses had gone up by approximately 20 per cent in the last 12 months. It was officially confirmed yesterday that the figure is 19.2 per cent. This compares with a figure of 8.2 per cent for inflation which was furnished by the Minister yesterday. Not merely are we puzzled and surprised but it is fair to say that the country will be shocked at this revelation. The Minister has a duty to explain the increase of 20 per cent in the price of houses as against an inflation rate of 8.2 per cent. This raises very serious implications for people buying houses. They must secure a loan to buy a house for £15,000 and this will impose repayments up to 40 or even 50 per cent of a man's weekly wage. A figure was quoted by Deputy Eileen Lemass recently of repayments of £43 per week on a house.
There is also the added information available this morning that the inflow of funds to the building societies has fallen by 50 per cent, despite the fact that the Minister of State at the Department of Industry and Commerce, when questioned about industrial housing and the reduction in the allocation of funds by the IDA and SFADCo for the building of industrial housing, said that there was plenty of money available from the building societies. This is the point my colleague Deputy Mitchell was raising here this morning. It was spelled out clearly this morning by a spokesman for the building industry and the Building Materials Federation that unless there is action by the Government on the question of the availability of loans and funds from the building societies there will be a serious disruption in the building industry.
The question is tied up with the Government's much-vaunted pre-election promise of the £1,000 grant to first-time house purchasers. In light of the information now available of the colossal escalation in the price of houses and the shortage of building society funds this £1,000 is now exposed for the dishonest election gimmick which it was. If the average price, according to the figures given by the Minister yesterday, has increased by something like £2,500—from £12,500 to £15,000—that means that an additional £2,500 has to be found to purchase the average house. This makes a mockery not merely of the £1,000 but of the much-vaunted commitment of the Fianna Fáil Party to the development of the construction and the building industry.
The Minister has a serious obligation to explain to this House why the cost of houses has risen so much and what steps he proposes to take to ensure the availability of adequate funds and loans to people who wish to buy houses. There is an urgent need for the Government to realise that the honeymoon is over and that the realities are now becoming manifest. I am suspicious—and how can I be otherwise—when I hear the Minister say there are plenty of funds available from the building societies to build houses and that there was no need for the IDA, SFADCo or Gaeltarra Éireann to build houses for industrial workers.
This is a serious matter. It has serious economic and social implications. Therefore the Minister and the Government must as a matter of urgent priority carry out an in-depth review of the whole question of housing, house prices, availability of loans and other problems of building societies. I dealt with other aspects of housing last week and I do not wish to repeat myself but I felt obliged to comment on this very serious trend developing in relation to the building industry and housing in general.
I wish to draw the Minister's attention to a development in the provision of housing in the private sector which has been taking place in our region in recent years. I refer to the tremendous success of the Rural Housing Agency under the dynamic guidance of Father Harry Bohan. This was an original and imaginative concept and it has produced the very desirable situation that through the principles and modus operandi utilised good houses are being made available at very reasonable prices for people who in the normal course would be applying for local authority houses. I do not know precisely what the Minister could do to extend the work of the Rural Housing Agency but I think he will agree that this agency appears to have found a formula which can provide houses at a very reasonable cost. They are a non-profit-making organisation and I suppose it is the principal of co-operativism that is involved really. I do not know if there is scope for extending, not perhaps the agency itself which is based on the mid-west region largely, but the idea to other parts of the country.
Very great credit is due to the Shannon Free Airport Development Company for the assistance, guidance and support they have given to Father Bohan and his agency. I should like the Minister to look into this idea and examine the possibility of having it more widely extended.
I represent a very large urban constituency in Limerick city and demand for local authority housing is always there. It has not abated and while in recent years Limerick Corporation have been making a major effort in building local authority houses and while the situation has been alleviated to some extent there is still tremendous demand for corporation houses. I hope the Minister will continue to provide the necessary funds to the corporation and to Limerick County Council to enable them to maintain the momentum of recent years in respect of housing.
Another very serious problem—I do not know if it is common to every urban area but certainly it is a major problem in Limerick and has been through the years—is the problem of the repair and maintenance of local authority houses. In some of the older Limerick housing estates, Killilea, Ballynanty, Ballynacurra West, St. Mary's Park and other areas there is an enormous backlog of house repairs and Limerick Corporation are unable to get to grips with it satisfactorily. I and every other public representative in Limerick week after week at our constituency clinics have people complaining about waiting a long time for necessary house repairs, very often relatively minor repairs such as replacing windows, repairing roofs, replacing doors and so on. This did not arise today or yesterday; it is a longstanding difficulty. The Minister has inherited a very serious backlog here. I ask him to examine the problem very carefully. It comes down to the matter of availability of funds for local authorities to enable them to expedite the repair and maintenance of houses.
In that respect I have always been enthusiastically in favour of the concept of tenant purchase. A number of tenant purchase schemes have been initiated and adopted in recent years and have made considerable progress in the Limerick city area. In the fifties the first tenant purchase scheme was initiated, if I remember correctly, in the Janesboro area and it worked out satisfactorily. I also recall that the Minister indicated in his speech that he was formulating a new tenant purchase scheme or that one was about to be initiated. I am completely in favour of such schemes in relation to local authority houses. It is a good idea which generates pride of ownership and there is the concomitant responsibility on the owner to maintain the house. This problem of house repairs is enormous.
There is also a major problem regarding the provision of land for housing. In this respect I want to commend in particular Limerick County Council and specifically the county manager, Mr. Haslam. In recent years through his initiative and fully supported by the county councillors the council has been acquiring banks of land in rural towns and villages. In the case of my own local towns, Bruff, Hospital and Kilmallock and other areas, the county council went out when suitable parcels of land became available and acquired the land. It is now available not only for housing but also for industrial development. This is very important because human nature being what it is there is a tendency to allow things to drift on and suddenly one day an industrialist arrives in a town and there is no land available for industrial purposes. Very often he has to buy at an inflated price. The advent of an industry to a village also means the building of houses. We are in a very happy position. For example, in my local town of Bruff a parcel of land of, I think, eight acres became available some years ago and the county council purchased it. Subsequently, in 1974, we were fortunate in securing for the town a very successful German industry which now employs about 50 young people. The county council made half of the eight-acre site immediately available to SFADCo for that industry and houses are being built on the other four acres. This type of forward planning is very admirable and necessary. Also, in the smaller town or village of Hospital, five or six miles away, last spring 15 acres of land became available and Limerick County Council purchased it. I understand that negotiations are proceeding with SFADCo to build an advance factory there. This kind of forward planning is necessary. I do not know to what extent it goes on in other council areas but I have vivid memories of my experience as Minister for the Gaeltacht of putting industries into rural villages and towns along the west coast. Of course the building of a factory also means building houses.
The Minister mentioned the development of group water schemes. I am very much in favour of this concept and I am proud of the fact that before I became a Member of this House I was involved with Muintir na Tíre and I had a personal part in the initiation of group water schemes. It is no harm to remind the House that the major initial impetus with regard to group water schemes came from Muintir na Tíre and the ESB. At that time it was supported by Deputy Blaney, then Minister for Local Government. The concept of group water schemes is a good one because it means local community co-operation to provide a vital service. In the context of his responsibility for amenity schemes and the employment schemes with which he is involved, the Minister might consider extension of local community action in other areas also.
The Minister has an enormous problem to provide finance to bring our roads system to the standard required in this modern age. He mentioned that a loan of £31 million was negotiated from the World Bank. The provision of a proper roads system is such a basic and vital part of the infrastructure of the country that the Government must explore the possibility of getting much greater financial assistance from the EEC, and particularly from the regional fund. A good road and transport system is vital to regional development. I have always maintained that the question of securing finance for this should be a major priority in relation to the allocation of the regional fund.
I appeal to the Minister to leave no stone unturned and to waste no time in getting the much needed second bridge in Limerick. Incidentally, if this bridge is erected it will enable him to get home much more quickly. I understand that progress is being made but, like Dublin and Cork, Limerick has an enormous traffic problem and I urge the Minister to do everything in his power to ensure that a second bridge across the Shannon is provided.
I congratulate the Minister on the Estimate. It is one of the most detailed I have seen since I became a Member of this House last summer. The Department of the Environment is very important because it deals with matters that affect all the people.
The amount of the Estimate is very considerable but one also has to take account of the amount of money obtained from local funds and also the resources of urban and district councils. The Minister referred to the outlay that the community spend on the services; he said they were indispensable and that they contributed considerably to the national well-being. It might equally be said that if the necessary services did not exist that would create a problem for the national well-being.
An amount of £375 million has been contributed by the Central Fund and only a small amount of that is contributed by local councils. However, these councils still have control over a considerable amount of money and this demonstrates that the local groups have control over expenditure in their area. However, the overall responsibility must lie with the Department of the Environment to make sure that the money is spread evenly and is spent in a proper manner.
One of the reasons the Estimate has increased so much over last year's Estimate is that the Government have honoured the commitment given in the manifesto with regard to rates. A sum of £80 million has been provided for this item in the Estimate but one must take into account the benefit to more than 800,000 people. In addition, secondary schools and community halls have been helped and this will be of major benefit to local communities.
There was mention this morning about an increase in the price of houses. At the moment it is a builder's market because more people want to purchase houses. For the past few years the market was stagnant. People who were unemployed or who were not sure of their employment could not commit themselves to the purchase of houses. Everyone agrees that when the building industry is stagnant other auxiliary services are affected. The prices of houses are increasing all the time but that is not too unwelcome. Of course it is to be regretted that the prices have increased but having regard to the present state of the market I am afraid it is just a fact of life. I agree that anything the Minister could do in the area would be welcome but I am more interested in the Minister controlling standards. Builders who produce shoddy work should be prevented from doing so. This affects private householders as well as local authority tenants. We hear a lot about local authority houses but private householders do not get the same hearing. Often their houses are left without windows or doors for months while the builder moves to another site. This is a matter the Minister might consider.
The £1,000 grant has been of great benefit to young people. For many of them it was the difference between being able to buy their own house or having to remain in rented accommodation. Unlike other grants the £1,000 goes directly to the individual concerned. However, there have been a number of snags with regard to the certificate of reasonable value. The builder must have a CRV before the £1,000 is given. A number of people in Dublin housing estates got caught by this. Some of them had put their deposits down before the election. They had contracted to buy houses costing between £17,000 and £18,000. If the Department of the Environment did not consider that was reasonable value they did not get the £1,000. It is all right to say that people should have known but they do not always read the small print on builders' contracts. Builders do not always quote what people are entitled to. I believe they are doing it now.
In relation to the building employment scheme the money being spent this year should be a great help. Last October 25 per cent of the building industry were unemployed compared with 11 per cent in other industries. Over £450 million in the public capital programme is being spent to generate work in the building industry. This is an increase of 20 per cent over last year and is a tremendous boost to the employment side as well as providing houses. A sum of £62 million is down for environmental services but it is not made clear where this money will be spent. I believe, from what rural Deputies have said in this debate, that much of this money will go on sewerage and drainage.
As a city Deputy I would like to put in my plea on where some of that money should be spent. My constituency, like that of most other Dublin constituencies represents a fair cross section of housing. We cover local authority housing, parts of what are known as the inner city area, the flat areas, luxury flats and the high rise flats in the Ballymun area and then there are also houses which cost £40,000 plus. The people in the last category can solve their own problems. I would like to refer to a few problems in relation to the corporation housing in my area. Last week some of the Deputies spoke about housing in the inner city area, which is part of my constituency and they said the houses there were falling down. We are not sure if the houses which are 100 years old or those which are only five years old will fall down first.
I want to refer particularly to the Finglas South housing scheme. Although those houses are not falling down they are propped up and this is likely to make people believe that they are actually falling down. The 1970 scheme they were built under, the low cost housing scheme, was as disastrous as the high-rise flats. We hope that neither of those schemes will be repeated. People in Finglas South are looked down on by others who say that they cry wolf at everything. I suppose some of those people have to exaggerate things to get people to look at some of their grievances. There was a lot of publicity about the roofs sinking on those houses in Finglas South which are only five years old but that is only one problem which affects a small number of houses.
There are many more problems in those houses. They have a great condensation problem. The Department and the corporation have come up with various solutions about this problem. One solution suggested was to have the heating on all the time but many of those people are on assistance or very low wages and they cannot afford bills of £100 a month for heating. I know that the Minister has listened to the problems in this area but I am afraid not many people realise the extent of this condensation problem. Anybody who visits the area can see fungus on men's suits, never mind on the walls. There is even grass growing on the inside of some of those houses. People do not know whether to open their windows or lock them. Various architects who have examined the problem tell them to throw out the "Super Ser" and open the window and they will ventilate the houses.
I know that a grant is provided to instal chimneys in houses which have not got them but there are 2,000 houses in that area so this would have to be a major scheme. There seems to be a lot of bye-laws and planning permission tied up in the various prefabricated chimneys that have been tested by the British Institute of Standards. In the meantime those houses are deteriorating. I believe those houses will have to be rebuilt if chimneys are not put into them soon or subsidised heating provided as there is in Ballymun and other areas. Some people have got grants for chimneys without waiting for a group scheme but it does not seem to have solved the problem. I would like the Minister to examine the possibility of having the problems in this area solved on a block basis under the supervision of Dublin Corporation and the Department officials.
We hear a lot of talk about vandalism in the inner city area. There was the unfortunate incident the other night of the 14-year old boy who stole a car and drove it down the country and this ended in disaster. Many of those young people who steal cars just drive them around the particular area and sometimes even leave them back again. It is very hard for those young people to do anything else when there are no green spaces for them and very little recreational facilities. There are many derelict buildings in the inner city area which are possibly owned by speculators. The corporation, instructed by the Department of the Environment should examine those derelict buildings to see if some of them can be used for recreational facilities. We often hear people saying that if something like that is provided in one of those areas it will be pulled down. Perhaps if we cannot convince the people under 20 years of age that they should have pride in their areas, we may convince future generations if proper recreational facilities are provided. It is accepted that in areas which are 25 years old they can have tulip gardens and nobody touches them. If one speaks to the older corporation officials they will tell you that when those gardens were first installed in those areas they were wrecked by the people who had just moved in. When young people have nothing to appreciate in their areas it is understandable that they have their cider parties and damage property.
Many of the problems in the inner city area are also to be found in the suburbs where houses have been stuck in the middle of nowhere and there are no environmental facilities. This is often left until too late and we have a new brand of vandals who do not appreciate anything. This passes on from generation to generation if proper recreational facilities are not provided.
We have heard a lot of argument about Loughan House which I believe most people agree is only a short-term solution to the problem we have in relation to some of those young people. I would prefer to talk about the amount of money we can spend on the environment as a long-term solution to this problem.
Some people have already referred to the £1,000 house grant as a gimmick but it is far from that. Over 7,300 people have received that grant between July and December of last year. Even if that grant was not available those houses would have been constructed, because there is a demand. I do not think it is the job of the Minister for the Environment to ensure that building societies supply the funds for those anxious to obtain loans. It should be remembered that it is a lot easier to get funds now than it was in 1974 or 1975. It was almost impossible to get a loan in those years. Even if one had money invested in a society for six months it was not possible to get a loan. Only those who knew somebody in a society or those who took out insurance policies got money. I accept that at present the money is not flowing out of the building societies, but the situation is a lot healthier than it was in the past. It is my belief that that is the reason why there is such a demand for houses.
The low rise mortgage scheme is a limited one but it is a great help. However, with the average price of houses being in the region of £12,000 and the amount of the loan limited to £7,000 it is very hard for young couples to raise the difference of £5,000. According to the Minister's statement a local authority house costs £11,500 and, allowing for a grant of £1,000, people must find in the region of £4,000. While local authority houses are not the best thing since fried bread they are of a reasonable standard. However, they are out of the reach of many people with the result that local authority housing lists grow. It is almost impossible for those who have not secure employment to pick up £3,000 or £4,000. Banks will look for security before advancing such a sum. We cod ourselves to a great extent when we say that the maximum loan of £7,000 is very good. A lot of those who cannot afford those houses are forced on to the waiting list for corporation and county council houses. Most of them do not want to do that and a short while after they move to a new area they look for a transfer. That has happened in many cases in Finglas South, Darndale and Tallaght. If it was possible to introduce a scheme whereby those given corporation or county council houses would own them from the first day I believe fewer people would be anxious to transfer. Those people would have a lot more respect for their houses also. Because of the number seeking transfers those on the housing waiting list appear to be given secondhand houses only. That is unfair.
The Minister must ensure that builders are brought into line with regard to structural grievances. I know of a case involving a house costing more than £20,000 where the builder returned the deposit after the person concerned had complained about a number of faults and refused to sign the contract until they were rectified. The builder told that person that he had plenty of other people anxious to buy that house. I do not think any builder has a right to be so arrogant. He is availing of Government grants and he should be made aware that the Government are putting a lot of money into the building industry. He should be brought to heel like anybody else and made respect the rights of purchasers. In too many cases we do not have the proper standards. Having been the victim of a large building company that took three years to rectify a chimney complaint—the same complaint applied to the whole estate where I live—I have no sympathy with such builders. People who pay a lot of money for a house are entitled to a proper guarantee. They should not have to pay out money to rectify faults after purchasing the house.
I welcome the changes in the reconstruction grant scheme effective from last November, but it is unfortunate that the grant is confined to houses which are ten years old. Most people when buying a new house cannot afford to buy the size they require. It should be possible for those people if they are anxious to carry out an extension three or four years later to qualify for the grant. The maximum grant of £600 would go a long way towards providing an extension to a kitchen. In a lot of new houses the builders provide lounges and dining rooms but cut the size of the kitchen.
On the question of roads I am sure the Minister is aware of the traffic problems that exist throughout this city. Anything he can do to improve the situation would be welcome. In many areas of the city people throw rubbish along the side of the roads with the result that traffic is obstructed. The corporation should clean up such roads periodically so that traffic can move freely. Juggernauts are left parked on double yellow lines and nobody seems to care about them. Such vehicles also cause serious accidents when parked on blind spots.
I welcome the introduction of legislation to deal with pollution and I am aware that a number of prosecutions are pending. However, some factories do not heed that legislation. In my constituency they pollute rivers like the Tolka and the canal. They pour effluent into local streams and do not worry. One can gauge the extent of the problem by looking at the filth that gathers on local houses. When approached about this matter those people say that experts are being brought in to examine the situation but the position seldom improves. I am glad the Department intend being stricter in this regard.
In recent years the corporation and the county council spent a lot of money planting trees in new housing estates. In my view it should be compulsory on those involved in developing estates to plant such trees at that stage and not ten years afterwards when the trees are growing and the children, now six or seven years old, take great delight in smashing them down. The corporation have to spend money then on barriers or whatever they put around trees to protect them. If they were planted when the estates were being built the residents of these estates, whether of council houses or purchase houses, would be glad to look after the trees themselves; but if they have to wait ten years for them and then the children go out and destroy them that is very unfortunate. Trees make an appreciable difference to an area. They make it much more pleasant to live in. The grass verges, if cars are kept off them, also help to improve the environment. I hope the Minister will continue to grant funds for these things, otherwise these amenities will be ignored, especially in council estates which are directly under the control of the corporation.
There was a campaign under the last Government to remove the graffiti from the walls around the city. These are now reappearing all over the place and since Christmas it seems that none at all have been removed. When they are removed they reappear, and nothing runs down an area so much as this type of defacement. Some measure should be brought in to impose penalties for offences such as breaking trees, painting on walls, damaging lamp standards, breaking down bollards and so forth, all of which are likely to occur frequently in a city.
I congratulate the Minister on the tremendous job he is doing since he came into office. I hope that the problems within our city and in areas such as Finglas will be examined and that during this term of office we will reach the situation where, if all the areas of the city are not perfect on the outside, at least the environment inside the houses is satisfactory.
This is the first opportunity I have had since the Minister assumed office of contributing to a debate on the activities of his Department. I congratulate him on his appointment and wish him well in office. He presides over a Department which impinges greatly on the lives of all the citizens and can be said to regulate to a very great extent the kind of society we have in the State. It has been properly recognised that the environment in which we live provides to a great extent the answer to very many of our problems. Had we given more attention earlier to proper environment some of the drastic measures we now feel compelled to take would not be necessary. A proper environment is the right of every citizen, and it has not been recognised until this year in this State—and perhaps in many others— as meriting the priority it should by us who have a say in the disbursement of public funds. Proper housing and amenities are a right of all our citizens but they are denied to a great many people in this country. With regard to local authority housing we have just come through a recession, but under the previous Minister very big strides were made in the last five years. Very many of the delays which were heretofore a regular feature of that type of housing were eliminated. For the first time in my experience as a member of a county council, building took place at a satisfactory rate. I represent an area which has a number of fast-developing towns in the environs of Cork city, towns like Blarney, Carrigaline and Ballincollig, growing at an alarming rate. Under the previous Minister's guidance, having built a string of houses we realised the fact that the number of houses we had built could not meet the ever-growing need for houses in those areas and we were able to avail of the contractor on the site to build a further string without delay. That was progress.
This year I am very concerned about the allocation of local authority houses, and I would like the Minister to assure me that my concern is not well-founded. The previous Minister tabled a question to the present Minister only a week or two ago and some alarming revelations have come our way from the table supplied to the previous Minister. It behoves each one of us when speaking on this Estimate to refer to the areas we represent as local politicians and as Deputies in this House. I want to refer, therefore, to a few figures. It is difficult to get figures across when speaking across the floor of the House, but there are a few figures supplied in that tabular reply which worry me greatly.
First, there is the allocation for work in progress in the south Cork area which I represent on the country council. There is the question of the amount of money requested, and I do not think for a moment that Cork (South) County Council requested one penny more than they needed to meet their commitments for work in progress. Cork (South) County Council requested £1,896,000 to meet commitments for work in progress; they were supplied with £1,120,000, a big shortfall of £776,000. Is anyone surprised that that worries me? We go on to find new starts before 31 July 1978, bearing in mind that we are £776,000 short for work in progress. We needed £482,000 for the new starts which we hope to commence before 31 July 1978. I suggest that that would build about 48 houses. We do not get £482,000; we get £125,000 a shortfall of £357,000. In other words, in my estimation, instead of starting work on 48 houses we will start work on 12. That is not progress. The same applies to north Cork, the other part of the area which I represent. We need £455,000 for new starts before 31 July 1978 for people urgently awaiting local authority houses, and we get £100,000. Instead of starting, as we hoped, something like 45 houses we start ten. This applies also in Cork city where there is a drastic need for housing. We needed £920,000 for new starts before 31 July 1978; we got £500,000, little more than half of our requirements.
As a Deputy representing the area and knowing the problems of these areas around and in Cork city, I can say there are people in very urgent need of rehousing. There are family and health problems. There are mental problems. There are family breakdowns because of housing conditions. I am not blaming the present Minister for all of this. I am blaming society and those who have been responsible ever since the State took over. There are great problems among young couples with children living in small, unfit, overcrowded accommodation, living with in-laws, with all the pressures that are on them to keep their homes and their marriages together. We meet them each week, and knowing the problems, we cannot but admit that this is a priority area. I am concerned about these allocations and would like the Minister to assure the House that more money will be forthcoming to house the type of people I am referring to.
There has been reference throughout the debate to the desirability of people providing their own houses rather than relying on local authority housing. However, since the change of Government there appears to be a move away from local authority housing. This is regrettable when one realises the problems facing people who wish to provide houses for themselves. For instance, the type of people I have in mind would qualify only for a local authority loan which is £7,000, more than half of which would probably go towards the purchase of a site. I have experience of sites costing between £5,000 and £6,000 each. Because of this situation it is necessary that local authorities make available serviced sites for people wishing to build their own houses. However, local authority sites are costing in the region of £3,500 each. Having regard to the cost of building land and the cost of servicing that land, county councils, unless they were prepared to subsidise the sites, would not be able to sell them for less than £3,500 each. After purchasing one of these sites a person who had obtained a local authority loan would have only the same amount left for building the house. If he is lucky enough he may qualify for the £1,000 grant but the total amount would fall far short of the cost of the building.
In these circumstances there is all the more need for more local authority houses but having regard to the allocation of money in this area this year we cannot be very optimistic in this respect. There has been reference to the £1,000 grant for the first-time house purchasers. All I would say in that regard is that this grant has made very little difference to the average young couple purchasing a house. We read in the papers this morning that the increase in the cost of housing is double the inflation rate. When grants in respect of housing are increased the benefit goes usually to the builders. Under the old scheme the grant was applied for in most cases by the builder but now at least the purchaser makes the application. There is the problem, though, of the certificate of reasonable value. Every member of the House must be aware of the appalling situation of people becoming involved in building houses for themselves on the understanding that they would qualify for the £1,000 grant only to find that for one reason or another they are not eligible for it. In most cases this results from the certificates of reasonable value not being forthcoming. If a person or his spouse has every owned a house either here or elsewhere he is precluded from the scheme. In my constituency, for instance, there are many old houses that have deteriorated beyond repair but even ownership of one of those houses precludes the person from qualifying for the grant.
I appreciate that the Minister has problems, too. Money is not found on trees but we must do everything possible to ensure that people have such a basic necessity as a house. What is needed urgently is some system of control in regard to the price of land for building. A house is an essential element of the needs of a human being so there should be no question of profiteering in this area. The Government should implement the recommendations of the Kenny Report in this regard.
For a number of years there has been much talk of housing newlyweds, of housing the elderly and of housing single people, too, but many of these people have little chance of being housed. Most local authorities are endeavouring to provide some sort of scheme for housing the elderly but the demand is never anywhere near satisfied. The whole question of housing for newlyweds has not been tackled at any stage. If we are to provide a proper environment in which young people can begin married life we must embark on a scheme of housing newlyweds and not leave them waiting for a house until they have several children.
Regarding the changes in the area of housing grants, there are some serious gaps. I am thinking in particular of the scheme of reconstruction grants. Under the old scheme there was provision for what was known as an essential repair grant. I represent a constituency in which there is a huge number of cottages occupied by old people, in many cases by old-age pensioners and in other cases by people on disability benefit or on some other low income. Such people would not have the resources necessary to repair their houses which very often are not fit for human habitation because of leaking roofs and so on. Under the old system county councils could carry out essential repairs to such houses but that is no longer the case. The abolition of that scheme will cause much hardship to the people concerned.
Another change in the area of loans relates to the reconstruction of old houses. Up to January last a local authority would pay reconstruction loans to the extent of the full loan that might be available for a new house, that was, up to £4,500. I was surprised and disappointed to find that within the past couple of months a circular has been issued by the Department notifying local authorities that a ceiling of £2,500 must apply now. Having regard again to the increased cost of such work, that amount is not nearly adequate. Very often the reconstruction work is of a major nature, for example, where houses are damaged during storms or are burned down. To do a proper job in such circumstances would necessitate an outlay of as much as £7,000. Steps should be taken immediately to rectify this situation.
I ask the Minister too to speed up, in so far as possible, work on water and sewerage schemes in rural areas. Such schemes might have the effect of making more land available for housing, thereby reducing the cost of such land to some extent.
The previous speaker referred to the tenant purchase scheme. Different Ministers down through the years have introduced schemes in this area but having regard to inflation and to the high cost of houses recent schemes are making it difficult for people to buy their houses. Some time ago overtime was excluded in the calculation of incomes for the purpose of differential rents. This may have lead to a situation of rents being more reasonable than would be the cost to a tenant of purchasing his house. However, a payment of £18 or £20 per week in respect of the purchase of a local authority house is a very big outlay. I appreciate that people buying private houses would also have to pay as much as this.
Local authority houses are very well built and are good value for money but down through the years there has been a distinction in the design of local authority houses from the design of private houses. Since I came into public life I have asked architects and people of influence to try to bring about a situation where there would be no distinguishing feature between local authority and private houses. Usually local authority houses are built in terraces or there is something jutting out over the door. There is always something about them which lets the by-passer know that this is not a private housing scheme. It is time that stopped. There should be no such thing as confining local authority houses to one area and private houses to another. An effort has been made to mix these houses and that is the way it should be.
We have all had experience of the building of big estates—large numbers of houses in one area. It is very important that we provide the proper amenities in those estates, open spaces adjacent to the houses where young children can play and be supervised by their parents from the confines of their houses and larger open spaces where teenagers and school children can play. It is not enough to reserve areas for amenities; money must be forthcoming as well. If there was a local input in terms of money and labour it would serve to make a better community. Because of the large amount involved there must be departmental and local authority involvement as well. These amenity areas should not be reserved only as green areas on a county development plan, some effort must be made to develop them so that they can be used by the residents when they move into their houses. We have been talking about this problem for a long time but we never did anything concrete about it, such as putting money aside to provide these very worth while amentities. This has been a big problem in private housing estates.
There has been very little control over builders and developers of private estates and very little has been done to ensure they carry out their conditions of planning. We all know of estates where people bought houses and after five or ten years they still had very few of the services for which they contracted when they bought their houses. This must be enforced at local level and most local authorities now have enforcement officers. I would ask the Minister to bring his weight to bear in this area and ensure that the people who buy their houses in private estates get the amenities for which they have contracted. This is a common problem which we meet regularly.
Roads are a very big problem and are an even bigger problem for people who represent fast-developing areas. Coming from an area around the harbour and adjacent to Cork city where a great deal of development has taken place in recent years, I find we have a huge backlog. This has been exacerbated by the fact that this development involves the breaking up of roads to instal services—water supplies, sewerage schemes, telephone services, all the services that go with the creation of a new residential area. Roads are regularly broken up and are not permanently repaired with the result that there is a big backlog which will need a large infusion of money if they are to be put in order. Deputy O'Donnell said that roads were very important and that an application should be made to the regional fund. In the Cork harbour area the road situation needs a big infusion of money and the Minister should give attention to this.
There is a great need to speed up and try to intensify our campaign to stop dumping and keep the countryside cleaner. This is a regular problem for local authorities. While legislation is improving somewhat, it is still not adequate to deal with offenders. We cannot be proud of our countryside because there is indiscriminate dumping, which is a regular source of concern. This problem has never been properly tackled and the Minister should turn his attention to it. I am sure many Deputies are constantly bringing it to his attention because it is very important from the points of view of the standard of living, health, tourism and so on.
In conclusion I would like to refer to grants for insulating houses. We have an energy problem and the conservation of energy has been seriously debated for some time. This may be a serious problem in a very short time. In my view the Minister would be longsighted if he made grants available for insulating houses. This would cut down heating costs which are a large feature of the family budget. This is another aspect of the activities of his Department to which the Minister should give attention in the months ahead. I want to remind him that housing is the part of his portfolio to which he should give the most serious attention. I sincerely hope that my fears in regard to housing in my area will not be well-founded. There are people in my area who need houses badly and whose health, families and way of life are threatened because they do not have the kind of houses to which they are entitled. I would ask the Minister to give priority to this area.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. What I found most reassuring was the swift action with which the Taoiseach recognised the necessity from the very start to establish a Department of the Environment having control over local government. This showed a firm desire to tackle the immense problems involved and to battle with the preservation of our environment. This was a fresh approach for Ireland. In the past there was the mistaken concept that the environment was more a luxury than a matter that needed particular and continuing attention. Naturally our environment like any other resource is expendable. It is up to every citizen to recognise the fact that our environment and all that pertains to it are expendable resources that must be treasured by our citizens.
As a member of Dublin Corporation I am well aware of the various problems with which the Minister is faced, problems diverse from housing, traffic chaos and providing greater community activities for our citizens. I congratulate him on the enormity of his budget, approximately £206 million including the supplementary estimate. I cannot allow the opportunity to pass without referring to what I regard as the single outstanding aspect of this Estimate, that is, the abolition of rates on private dwellings. I congratulate the Minister for relieving every citizen of the immense burden.
I would like to make a suggestion which relates to the rates' burden which falls on small shopkeepers. It might be prudent to retain a token amount, perhaps in the next Estimate, to alleviate the burden that falls on small shopkeepers who have to keep open very long and late hours to defray their expenses because the rates are still a heavy burden on their shoulders. This could be done through the waiver scheme on a sliding basis.
The Minister stated that the local authorities responsible for spending some £530 million will in effect not lose any power. It is most important that local authorities realise that there is no loss of power and that they are responsible for so many activities in their administration.
I will address myself to certain aspects of the Department of the Environment. There are three headings under which I will speak, one in relation to traffic problems, the second in relation to the provision in the Estimate for community needs and the third, in relation to miscellaneous activities.
In relation to traffic problems it is obvious that there are too many motor cars on our highly busy and somewhat inadequate roads. Last year alone 80,000 cars were registered for the first time, a rise of about 20 per cent on the previous year. In 1975 there were 510,000 cars on Irish roads but at the end of this year there will be 750,000. During the ten years from 1965 to 1975 the total increase in the number of cars was 230,000. The increase in the last three years is even more than that by some 30,000. The remainder cars in 1965 was 280,000, but we will increase the number by more than that amount within a period of three years.
This problem has crept up on us like a cancer and unless checked the repercussions will be absolutely terrifying for people living in cities. We can take positive action instead of continually referring to the traffic congestion. We can take measures straight away to alleviate the problem. There is an urgent need to introduce some type of flexi-time or staggered working hours in the city. This is a practical measure which could be implemented immediately. The Government should give a lead through the civil service Departments by introducing flexi-time, which would case traffic congestion in Dublin.
In a recent study An Foras Forbartha estimated that on average 170,000 people converge on the inner city on an ordinary working day. It is quite obvious that the city bus services will be severely hampered by this type of influx, the population swollen by 170,000 workers each day. Workers are spending valuable hours frustrated in snarled up traffic jams and are often penalised for arriving late through no fault of their own. We must get to grips with this problem and encourage offices and factories to introduce a system of staggered working hours. In the flexi-time situation work could start between eight and ten in the morning and finish between four and six in the evening, with a variable lunch break of from half an hour to two hours. Apart from easing the traffic problem it would be an advantage to get people out of the humdrum of nine to five busy traffic and ritualistic working hours.
This system has worked quite well in other cities. It has been introduced on a widespread scale on the Continent and there is no reason why we cannot take this measure. Research was done on flexi-time and there is a flexi-time computer specifically designed that can be hired to deal with this problem, so there is no question of pioneering the system. There is also an immediate advantage in relation to rotating duties in the home where people cannot get out at certain times during the day. A staggered working hour system would help to relieve that problem. From an environmental point of view it is of paramount importance. Anything that would improve the lifestyle of the people is good. It is interesting to note that Dublin Corporation are engaged in a feasibility study on the question of introducing flexi-time for their workers. Surely all local authorities coming under the umbrella of the Department of the Environment have a direct responsibility in this regard and I strongly urge the Minister to do something straight away. I feel that the system would catch on rapidly.
In addition to staggered working hours we could also ease congestion by encouraging a car pooling system where drivers would share their cars. This system was used with great success in America. The Government could set an example here through the civil service. Incentives could be given and a publicity campaign could be launched to encourage the sharing of cars. It is a total waste of energy and working hours when on a busy road, with traffic bumper to bumper, there are one or two people standing at bus stops and others with one driver in big cars are inching along at a snail's pace.
It is very heartening to see from the Minister's speech that the Government are placing immense importance on the development of our road system. It is great that we are spending 40 per cent more this year than last year. The momentum should be kept up. Developing roads is one thing, but we must try to ease the burden of congestion or else our capital city will grind to a halt. The problem has become even worse over the past six months or so with the numbers of cars coming on the roads.
Central Government will make available £375 million to local authorities in grants and capital issues from the Local Loans Fund. Local authorities are certainly enabled and encouraged to provide for community needs. Dublin city needs an updated approach to the new requirements of the city. It is encouraging to see so many young children in the Public Gallery listening to a debate on the environment when they are being taught about this most important subject in school, taught a most important aspect of an attitude to physics, preservation of the environment. They have the privilege of living in a country where there is a new awareness of a need to preserve the environment.
I call on the Minister to give serious consideration to extending the excellent system of funding used to provide our only tartan running track at Belfield whereby the Department of Education, Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Corporations and the Dublin county pooled resources to provide this track. It is used by Dublin citizens; they come from all directions to avail of it. This is a very sensible system of funding, avoiding placing the burden on one particular area, and I should like to have it extended into other activities.
I have referred before to one particular facility, provision of an ice rink. I feel strongly about this because our young people need new activities, and a new approach to sporting activities and better indoor facilities. With a population of almost one million people it is absolutely deplorable that the city lacks an ice rink. Objections were put forward on climatic grounds; but I find from my researches that ice rinks are available even in Africa and Spain where warm climatic conditions prevail. The modern idea is to look for new outlets for developing teenagers so that they can express themselves in a way in which, internationally, sports are being recognised. I ask the Minister to consider that idea. It would give a tremendous fillip to the city if he could provide some central sporting complex with facilities for indoor activities at community level—tennis, squash, ice rink, skate boarding and so on. These could all be included in one large indoor complex.
Apart from the activities young people need there is a great opportunity and the Department of the Environment have direct control here —to provide greater lawn bowling facilities in the city for senior citizens. All our public parks should have better bowling facilities. We lag lamentably behind other countries in this regard and I should like the Minister to consider this matter also.
The Minister has referred very responsibly to the question of drink and driving. It is an aspect of a very serious problem that is developing. It leads me to wonder how we can improve our environment and at the same time permit an attitude that allows and almost encourages people to be faced with the very flamboyant and glamourised approach that exists towards drink. The Department have provided great recreational facilities throughout the country, but are these facilities being used? Recently, a very interesting research showed that something like 90 per cent of those who went on forest walks—there are many of them; nearly 20 per cent of Wicklow is publicly owned in forest and has beautiful walks—did not walk more than 100 yards. This is incredible; it is an alarming statistic. Seven per cent of them did not walk more than one mile and only three per cent completed the walk.
I was wondering what the present Minister would have to do with people walking in forest parks or otherwise.
I think his function is, through his Department and local authorities, to encourage people to use these parks. We were debating this in Dublin Corporation—that some publicity should be given to it, so that recreational facilities would be used to a greater extent. I would appeal to the Minister to give some thought to that.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It is quite understandable when the Minister is Minister for the Environment.
I fear we are stretching that title considerably, not this speaker alone but most others also. It is hard to know where environment begins or ends.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Perhaps we expect the Department to live up to its title.
I said at the outset that I would classify my contribution into certain areas and I shall abide by that. Finally, I shall refer to miscellaneous aspects of the Minister's speech. I have a particular interest in seeing developed some national attitude to waste management and, where possible, encouraging recycling of valuable materials at present being discarded. We can go a long way in trying to attract industry. It has been argued that recycling can be expensive, just as incineration of waste material can be expensive; but I think the benefit to the environment of introducing modern techniques of this kind is highly desirable. I realise that this is a vast subject. I do not want to stretch the generosity of the Chair in any way or to stray into areas that the Chair considers irrelevant. I thank the Chair for allowing me to speak on as many aspects as I did.
The Minister has an enormous task facing him. The Taoiseach realised it when he created the Department of the Environment. It is a battle that we must fight. We have a Minister who is immensely interested in his portfolio. He is tackling this huge task in a very organised manner and this is obvious from his speech, We must move quickly in our attitude to the environment. We cannot wait for protracted decisions. Quick action is necessary to tackle the problem.
I should like to thank the Deputies who have contributed to the debate. It was a reasoned and constructive debate even though on occasion some emotive terms were used. In the course of my reply it will not be possible to deal with every point that was raised but I shall endeavour to deal with all the main questions. I hope Deputies will forgive me if I do not deal with some of the less important details.
This morning Deputy O'Donnell referred to the increase in the average price of houses in the first quarter of 1977 and the first quarter of 1978. The Deputy should refresh his memory on this matter. On 3 March 1978 my Department published a quarterly bulletin of housing statistics for the quarter ended 31 December 1977. The Press release that accompanied the bulletin indicated that the average gross price of new houses for which loans were approved by the main lending agencies increased by 20 per cent last year compared with 1976. The corresponding increase of 19 per cent in prices in the building and construction industry generally should also be mentioned. Since April 1973 house prices, house costs and earnings have fluctuated considerably but the stage has now been reached where increases in house prices, house costs and average earnings have been broadly in line with each other. There is nothing new in the written reply to Deputy Fitzpatrick to which Deputy O'Donnell referred this morning. The increase is slightly under 20 per cent. It was 20 per cent for the whole of 1977 and it has averaged 19 per cent since 1973. It is not suddenly an unusual occurrence.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I do not propose to start interrupting but I would point out to the Minister that inflation is coming down and house prices are going up.
The Deputy will have an opportunity to ask questions when the Minister concludes.
Many Deputies expressed concern about the role of my Department with regard to the environment. The decision to have a Department designated as the Department of the Environment is a measure of the Government's determination that good quality in our physical surroundings will be part and parcel of plans for improving our living standards. The choice of Department fell on what was formerly the Department of Local Government and this is understandable because that Department has had more to do with environmental matters during the years than any other Department. It was a natural consideration and the decision was a realistic one.
Local authorities come under the control of the Department and they are involved in programmes of housing, roads, water and sewerage services and amenity and environmental works. These matters have a very important environmental input and responsibility. The main thrust of future efforts, as in the past, will be through local government and the local authority system. The traditional local government work programmes in housing, sanitary services, amenities and so on will remain the principal means of bringing improvement into the physical surroundings. The great bulk of the £560 million to be spent this year will go on purposes that will, directly or indirectly, benefit the physical environment.
It is true that more than ever before there is need for greater vigilance on the part of local authorities. They must guard the natural resources of air, water and land against pollution, particularly arising from the disposal of waste in its various forms. We have an opportunity of staying clear of major pollution problems and it will be part of my concern to see that we do. We are in good time as compared with other countries, even within the EEC. It will be my duty to see that the necessary measures are taken to ensure that we preserve the environment from further pollution, and where it has occurred to remedy it.
I have mentioned already that the pollution control powers of local authorities are being improved and this will continue to meet whatever additioned needs arise from time to time. At the moment considerable effort is being devoted to arranging for the implementation of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977. It includes regulations dealing with procedural and other aspects which I have made recently and the making of arrangements, mainly by local authorities, to enable the Act to operate as it was intended to operate. The licensing sections of the Act came into operation on 1 April 1978. The dates 1 October 1978 and 1 January 1979 have been fixed as the dates after which it will be an offence to make licensable discharges into water or sewers other than in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
It will be my responsibility also to promote programmes and projects for the protection and improvement of our environment. Local authorities are already engaged in this area through the provision of swimming pools, parks and amenities of various kinds. The additional provision this year of £4 million for environmental works will greatly add to the capacity of our local authorities to improve the local environment. A very important feature of this sum of money is that it will create employment, particularly for our young people. Certain criticisms have been expressed about the type of work which it is intended to carry out under this environmental programme. I would like to make it clear that provided works are of an environmental, recreational or amenity value to the community and preferably include schemes of special interest to young people, the selection of individual projects is a matter for each individual local authority. This is what they have been informed.
I also believe it is right that local authorities should have discretion in this matter. They are the people who are best geared to operate a scheme such as this. Any enhanced role for my Department with regard to environmental matters means also an enhanced environmental role for the local authorities. As I said, it is not a new role for those authorities. It is a further extension and development of what they have been doing in the past. It also reflects the way in which the physical surroundings and local government activities are so closely connected.
We are also to have a national policy for the environment for the first time. The main issues relating to the environment will have to be identified as we go along, so also what the Government will be seeking to achieve and the means by which they hope to do so. Such an environmental policy will indicate the criteria to be observed in the protection of our environment, measures for restoring damaged elements in the environment and measures for bringing about further improvements. Environmental considerations are important in virtually all policies and programmes relating to development. No single Minister could assume complete responsibility for all environmental matters. Environmental policy will be Government policy subscribed to by the Ministers in that Government, each of whom will be responsible for the environmental implications of what is going on in his own particular sphere or under his own Department. If any difference arises in relation to the policy between the different Departments or the different Ministers they will be settled in the normal way by the Government.
(Cavan-Monaghan): That is the way it has been for years.
All matters are settled by the Government, under any heading not just under environment. It will be the responsibility of each Minister more so than ever to have regard to the environmental effects of anything carried out under his Department. Deputy Fitzpatrick suggested that there should be an all-party committee on the environment. I recognise that the environment is a subject of major interest to all parties in the House. The position is that the Government have undertaken to prepare an environmental policy in discharge of their responsibility as the Government. I have explained the arrangements for securing consultations between the Ministers and their Departments and also with outside interests. The House will have ample opportunity of discussing the policy in due course as well as any further proposals. With regard to my own position I will be always ready to listen to any constructive comment and to take account of it. In the circumstances I do not consider it appropriate to set up an all-party committee.
I would also like to emphasise that we have had for some time an interdepartmental committee on environmental matters which will continue to function and will definitely have the very desired effect in co-ordinating what is going on in the different Departments. As well as this I announced some weeks ago that we would be setting up an environmental council. This is happening at present and I expect in a very short time to be able to announce the members of this environmental council, which will advise me as Minister from time to time and will help in the formulation of any future policies to do with the environment.
Deputy Fitzpatrick, during the course of his contribution, referred to the Fox Memorial Park in his constituency in County Monaghan, which was provided to commemorate the late Senator Fox. He referred to the problems which would arise in the maintenance of the park on a voluntary basis from year to year. I would like to inform him that I understand from the Minister for Fisheries that the park is being taken over by the Forest and Wildlife of his Department. Deputy Fitzpatrick has possibly been advised about this already.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I would like to compliment the Minister for Fisheries and his Department for taking it over.
Deputy Quinn and Deputy Fitzpatrick spoke on local government reorganisation on the first day of the debate. One could be forgiven for thinking that they had nothing to do with the Coalition Administration which for four and a half years considered this subject and made an announcement about certain solutions to the problem as they saw them on the eve of the general election, which proved too late to implement whatever ideas they had in mind or what they intended. One might also be forgiven for thinking that Deputy Fitzpatrick, even though a member of that Government, had not part in producing that solution which, while it could be claimed to include some useful matters and useful proposals, for example, to simplify boundary changes, would effect no radical change in the present system of local government as it has been functioning.
This is the system which the Deputy, quite unfairly I believe, alleges to be 100 years old. He conveniently forgets the very many changes that have been effected over the years, not merely in the structures of local authorities, but in matters of representation and finance.
A major change which I had the honour to introduce was the recent abolition of domestic rates. While on that, I can assure the House that, contrary to what has been suggested by the Opposition, the new arrangements will be so devised as to afford the local authorities the maximum discretion in the disposal of these moneys which will now be made available by way of block grant. This is a matter which can be discussed later on the appropriate Bill. I shall have more to say later in relation to rates.
To return to local government reorganisation, Deputy Fitzpatrick referred specifically to certain matters on which the Government of which he was a member appear to have taken decisions without availing of his ideas. He appears to consider that community groups and residents' associations should be brought into the local government system in some way. He may not know it, but there are existing provisions allowing local authorities to assist voluntary groups in different ways. But, as he should know, the Coalition "solution" for local government did not see a need for any fundamental change in the position.
Again he considers that there is a need for modernising the whole system of local government in the Dublin area. And once more the Coalition "solution" would have involved leaving things largely as they are. Now I have arranged to have the whole question of local government organisation examined in my Department and this work is in progress. The examination involves a study of all earlier proposals for reorganisation, including those relating to community groups. It will also cover the Dublin problem. When this work has been done I shall naturally consult with my colleagues and we shall then decide on further action. It may be that we shall decide on an independent commission of inquiry, such as Deputy Fitzpatrick suggested, but at this stage I have a completely open mind on such matters. However, all the options will be fully and objectively considered.
Can the Minister give any indication of the timetable involved in this report?
Not at this stage. Work is in progress and I anticipate it will be completed with the minimum of delay.
The arrangements made for financing local authority operations in the face of the abolition of rates on dwellings and certain other properties came under fire from Deputies Fitzpatrick and Quinn. Deputy Quinn went further. He voiced some criticism of the Government's scheme of abolishing domestic rates on the grounds that it confers a greater benefit on the wealthy. He seems to see a close relationship between the valuation of properties and the ability of people to pay. I do not think this is so. If it were, there would have been no great problem associated with the burden of rates on individuals. The reality is that the rateable valuation of dwellings, as a measure of the ability of people to pay was so crude that it could not be allowed to continue indefinitely.
I think the Opposition parties may have recognised this. The action they took in 1977, while they had the opportunity to do something, suggests that they did recognise it. The limited action they took, to the extent of 25 per cent last year, was directed at easing all domestic rates. The situation required a more fundamental approach, something we have for some back recognised. We have not drawn back from the problem. Instead we have acted boldly and resolutely to deal with it in the only way that provided a complete answer. We have abolished all domestic rates in full from 1 January this year.
Deputy Tully tried bravely to salvage some credit for the Coalition for the removal of domestic rates. His claim was that the previous Government had been enlightened enough to prepare the way for our initiative, thus easing our path, as it were. The public will remember well enough the scepticism with which Coalition spokesmen treated our proposal for abolition of domestic rates. Public memory is not shortlived in regard to this. From 1973 until 1977 they openly cast doubt both on its feasibility and its desirability. We grasped the nettle and abolished rates. The necessary legislation will be introduced shortly. It is almost ready. Our policy on domestic derating has been clearly and consistently maintained over the past five years. In fact, it has been clear since prior to the 1973 general election.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Nobody explained that to the Wolverhampton Wanderers who visited here recently.
They are about to be relegated; they are for the big drop.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister knows what I am talking about. I am talking about the representatives of Wolverhampton who came here in search of the Minister's magic formula but went back, according to themselves, as wise as they came.
The Wanderers are about to be relegated and, therefore, I do not know whether they are able to grasp the situation or not. I am aware that the Tory Party visited us and were very impressed. They are slightly of a higher scale than the Wolverhampton Wanderers.
The Chair cannot allow cross-fire.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Wolverhampton representatives were not impressed by the information they got from the Minister.
The Irish Tory Party impressed the British Tory Party.
I note the comments by Deputies Fitzpatrick and Quinn about the formula for limiting rate poundage increases which has been applied in the present year. A percentage increase on rate poundages embodies a number of factors making for fairness for those who must continue to pay rates. For one thing, it works by way of addition to a base agreed by each local authority as a reasonable provision for the maintenance of services in 1977. It is based on their assessment for that year and not on our assessment. In addition this form of limit allows local authorities the full benefit of all new and increased valuations arising in their areas which led to an increased percentage in the overall moneys available to them. The more developed an area is the greater the increase for that area. The type of limit I have applied is simple and does not interfere in any way with the discretion of local authorities to determine priorities within the rate in the £ which they strike. I can assure the House that the misgivings expressed by Deputy Tully about any eroding of the responsibilities of local authorities are totally without foundation. Local authorities are well aware that they establish their own priorities, as they always did, before they decide how to spend these moneys.
Is that within the financial limits?
There is no interference with them whatsoever with regard to how they will spend the moneys made available to them.
The local authorities cannot be blamed. They cannot carry them out if they have not the money to do it.
They have more money under all the headings than they ever had.
The Minister, not the local authorities, will decide how much money they have.
The Minister must continue without interruption.
The Deputy's own county council increased the rate for 1977 by 5½ per cent. They were allowed to increase the collectable rate by 11 per cent this year and the block grant they will get will probably represent something nearer to 20 per cent, and yet they increased it by only 5½ per cent, so who was limiting whom? Of course it was an election year.
It does not mean that we could increase it as we wished from year to year.
The 5½ per cent increase was a small one.
Order.
A number of Deputies referred to the need for special action to deal with the social and economic problems of inner city areas in Dublin. Deputy Keating during the course of his contribution issued an invitation to me to do a tour of the inner city with him, but for his information I have already done this tour. I did it as far back as the end of last September, if I remember correctly. I have visited not all but very many areas which come under the corporation new housing schemes outside the city as well as within the city centre area. Therefore, I am not completely unaware of the problems that exist. There are a number of problems within the inner city area. Deputy Keating dwelt widely on these problems, but I emphasise that I have no responsibility as Minister for the Environment for the crime problems or educational problems which he referred to, or indeed for the problems which are the concern of the Minister for Health and Social Welfare which he dwelt on extensively.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Does the Minister not regard housing conditions as affecting the crime rate?
Housing would have an effect. At present a detailed examination is going on in my Department, and has been going on for some time, with regard to problems in the inner city area. When this is completed I will consult with my colleagues who also have a responsibility with regard to the best and proper action to be taken to deal with problems within the city. Also the question of housing within the inner city has been raised. I should like first of all to make it clear that there is no such thing as a stop being put to the housing development within the inner city area. Any worthwhile proposal that comes before me will be considered favourably. Therefore the idea which has been put forward at corporation level and elsewhere that we have stopped this kind of development is not correct.
Does the Minister disregard the paragraph in the White Paper?
I am about to refer to it. The paragraph in the White Paper conveyed that a critical assessment or appraisal of local government housing would be undertaken and it has been undertaken. We would be a very irresponsible Government if we were not prepared to do this because we have to take account of the tremendous cost, particularly within the inner city area where at present housing can cost and is costing up to £26,000 per unit; so far it has averaged at £20,000 per unit. Also it should be remembered that a £26,000 unit or house within the inner city area will be as rented accommodation for 35 further years and will cost £60 per week by way of subsidy; and a £20,000 house will cost a further £50 per week. It is only realistic and proper that a further appraisal of the cost and these moneys should be undertaken with a view to improving the situation for the benefit of the people who will still want to continue to live within the area. It should also be emphasised that the current cost of houses in the County Dublin area, where the corporation are building many schemes, runs at approximately £16,000 per unit at the moment. It does not automatically follow that there is a tremendous pressure to live within the inner city area. Quite a percentage of people want to live outside the inner city area, but the White Paper did not say in any way that there would be no further development within the inner city area. It said that a critical appraisal of local authority housing would be undertaken, and it has been undertaken.
Subsidies can hardly continue indefinitely.
A critical appraisal has been undertaken and, let us be clear, the easier and more possible it is made for people who need housing to acquire and buy their own houses, the better. Most Irish people, as far as I am aware, do have a desire to own their own houses, and I see nothing wrong with this. We did take the necessary steps to try to ensure that it would be possible for them to do so. We raised the maximum SDA loan from £4,500 to £7,000 within our first few days of being in office and the upper income limit was also raised.
The building societies were referred to earlier in the context of the lack of money in the current year and fears were expressed that this would interfere with the housing programme. These building societies have also made a lot of money available. For example, last year they made £120 million available to the private sector and this year, according to our estimate, they will be making £150 million available. There may have been a drop off in building society deposits in the early part of this year, but there was a very significant build-up in those deposits in the latter half of 1977. We are still confident that they will provide £150 million this year for private sector housing.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The people cannot lend money to the Government and the building societies at the same time.
I beg the Deputy's pardon?
(Cavan-Monaghan): The people cannot lend money to the Government and the building societies at the same time. The Government will gobble up all the money available for them.
The amount of building society deposits that go for housing is 97 per cent.
(Cavan-Monaghan): That is what I say, but the Government will gobble up the money.
Deputy Keating called for a greater use of the powers under the Derelict Sites Act, 1961, particularly in the Dublin city area. The purpose of the Derelict Sites Act is to provide a fair but effective procedure whereby local authorities can secure the clearance and improvement of derelict sites which are in a condition which would be deemed to be injurious to health or amenities. The Act provides local authorities with a number of alternative courses for the rendering of sites non-derelict and for making them acceptable, including powers of acquisition which are important for the local authorities. The aim is to secure a clearance by the owners and acquisition is a last resort. I have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Dublin authorities are not making use of the powers available to them under this 1961 Act. The corporation are at present actively pursuing the clearance of about 250 derelict sites within their jurisdiction.
There has also been Opposition criticism to other references in the White Paper with regard to local authority houses which I have already mentioned, and I have clarified what is intended under and conveyed by the White Paper.
Deputy Michael Pat Murphy criticised as inadequate the capital allocations to date for local authority housing to the three county council authorities in the Cork area. The most effective answer I can give him is to quote the figures both for this year and for last year for each of these areas and to mention the percentage increase in each case.
In Cork (West) local authority area the allocation in 1978 is £200,000 compared with £150,000 last year. That represents an increase of 33? per cent. The allocation for Cork (South) authority is £1.245 million this year compared with £1.060 million last year, on an increase of 17 per cent. The allocation for the Cork (North) area represents an increase this year of 31 per cent, or £537,000 compared with £410,000 last year.
What matters in any area is how much is being spent within the year to build new houses, not the division between new work and old work. If the Deputy is so displeased with the total allocations to date—with increases which range from about twice to more than three times the national average increase—I should hate to think what he might have said 12 months ago when the allocations for 1977 were announced.
The need for local authorities to provide developed sites for private housing was mentioned by Deputy Deasy. Local authorities are given every encouragement to develop and sell housing sites to persons wishing to provide housing accommodation for themselves. During 1977, with the aid of capital from the public capital programme, a total of 868 sites were developed. At the end of that year a further 1,340 sites were being developed for private housing and work was planned or about to start on a further 2,164. I would welcome an increase in activity by local authorities in this branch of housing and in the provision of sites.
Deputy Tully expressed some reservations about the Tenant Purchase Scheme introduced by me in December last. His concern was that the repayment terms were too high in respect of houses built recently while the discount of £1,300 was too low. The interest rate for tenants purchasing by annuity under the 1976 scheme was 12½ per cent. Under the new scheme that rate has been reduced to 11½ per cent. In addition I asked local authorities to give the benefit of the lower interest rate to applicants under the 1976 scheme where the sale was completed after 23 December 1977.
I am amazed at Deputy Tully's comments regarding the £1,300 discount. Under the schemes implemented in the years 1973, 1975 and 1976 when the Deputy was Minister, the discount remained unchanged at £900. I increased it to £1,300 this year. This gives tenants the benefit of a discount equivalent to the £1,000 new house grant and a further £300 because tenants were assessed for full rates on taking up tenancy of new houses or flats before 1 January 1978. In the context of the abolition of rates on dwellings the £1,300 discount is generous.
The Opposition seem to have had something of a conversion on the question of State assistance for new houses and for improvements. There seems to be a good deal of agreement that the introduction of the £1,000 grant for new houses and the higher grants for house improvements were worth while and popular initiatives on the part of the Government. We heard little reference, if any, to the virtues of the stringent means tests and valuation limits which the former Government applied so resolutely under their schemes. When my colleague, the Minister of State at my Department, spoke on March 15——
(Cavan-Monaghan): We did not seek the assistance of the Revenue Commissioners as the Minister will be doing.
——he dealt in considerable detail with various aspects of private housing. He covered the ground comprehensively by reviewing the operation of the £1,000 grant scheme, the house improvement scheme, the system of price control of houses and flats and the structural guarantee scheme for new houses. However, Deputies may be interested in having some details of activity to date under the new grants scheme.
More than 11,000 applications for £1,000 grants were received in the Department up to mid-April this year. As houses are being completed and occupied, more grants are maturing for payment. By 14 April 1,380 grants had been paid. A considerable increase in the pace of payments can be expected as the year progresses. In the period from 1 January to mid-April almost 9,400 applications for house improvement grants have been received. This represents an increase of more than 90 per cent compared with 12 months earlier. Such a level of interest by house owners demonstrates that they are more than anxious to maintain their houses if given an incentive to do so.
How many applicants for the £1,000 grant have found that they are not eligible for the grant?
From memory I think the figure is less than 5 per cent.
That is less than 5 per cent of those assessed.
Deputy Peter Barry raised a number of aspects of the £1,000 grant. He instanced problems which he maintained were being encountered by many young couples. He said that having entered a contract to purchase the house they found that they could not get the £1,000 because of the builder not having got a certificate of reasonable value. My Department are very conscious of the problem to which the Deputy referred. As has been said many times, the purchase of a house is a major financial transaction of most couples during their lifetime. However, at the time of purchase they have little experience of house prices and no knowledge of building costs.
The Department have gone to considerable lengths to bring to public notice the conditions governing the £1,000 grant. Each person inquiring about the grant is issued with an explanatory statement setting out all the requirements that must be met. Perhaps I should quote paragraph 6 of that statement. It reads:
If the new dwelling is being purchased from a builder, you should ensure that he has obtained a Certificate of Reasonable Value (CRV) and that the gross price being paid does not exceed that stated on the certificate. Otherwise your application for a grant cannot be considered. CRVs are therefore required for all grant-type houses and flats built for sale.
In addition press notices have been repeatedly inserted by the Department warning house purchasers that the grants are available only if a CRV is available. There is also a requirement that builders must display their CRV prices on the site. It is hard to see what more can be done, despite our desire to do everything possible. In practice about 90 per cent of all houses built by speculative builders qualify for CRVs. This does not always happen on the builder's first submission to the Department but subsequently many of them are granted the CRV when a builder reduces or justifies the price he is demanding. Perhaps there could be no greater justification for the CRV system than the instance referred to by Deputy Barry where a reduction of £3,000 is being sought in the price of certain houses in Cork. This helps to justify the CRV system.
Deputy Barry also wanted to know whether house prices could be controlled by the Prices Commission. The answer to this must be no. Houses are like farms. Hardly any two houses are identical in every respect, which normally applies to commodities the prices of which are controlled by the prices commission. Site and subsoil conditions vary from site to site. The cost of roads, water and sewerage services and extensions of ESB supply vary from scheme to scheme. The quality and extent of the fittings in houses also differ widely. The present arrangement using the expertise of professional officers of my Department, including a quantity surveyor, architects and engineers, all with their own particular experience of houses, has worked well. During the past three years it has secured savings exceeding £1.5 million to house purchasers. Without duplicating this team of officers the prices commission could not replace my Department's system of house price control. Therefore, in my opinion the suggestion is not workable.
Would the Minister not agree that he is chasing builders out of that market and they are now building a different type house?
We are not chasing anybody out of any market. Is the Deputy for or against the CRV system?
I am for the system but not the way it is being operated.
Would the Deputy prefer us to make it more flexible thus raising the price of houses further? Is this what the Deputy is suggesting?
They have been raised enough. The Minister is chasing builders out of the market and there are now more people on the local authority housing lists——
The Deputy had an opportunity to speak in the debate.
That is not happening.
The Minister will see in 12 months time that that is happening.
Deputy O'Donnell spoke about the availability of mortgage finance to which I referred earlier and he mentioned building societies. On 9 March 1978 I indicated it was estimated that 26,500 houses would be completed this year. This estimate is still valid. It takes into account the fact that the Government have increased the provision of SDA loans from £17 million in 1977 to £39 million this year. The Associated Banks expect to advance loans totalling £30 million this year. Expenditure by the building societies on loans will reach, it is estimated, £150 million compared with £120 million in 1977. Assurance companies will spend a further £6 million approximately. While there has been a drop at the beginning of this year in the net outflow to building societies, this was not experienced at the end of 1977 and the target of £150 million for this year is still achievable taking all the factors into account.
Deputy Michael Pat Murphy was worried that a farmer whose house was quite unfit might not qualify for the £1,000 new house grant. The grant is payable to a first-time owner-occupier of a new house where neither he nor his wife previously bought or built a house. For instance, a farmer who inherits a house can qualify for a grant if he buys or builds a new house. A person who buys a farm on which a dilapidated old house may be standing will not be debarred from getting a grant by reason of the old house on the farm. My Department administer the grants scheme in a reasonable way and will entertain applications from any person living in a caravan, a mobile home or a conventional type house which is so unfit that the Department would not agree to pay a reconstruction grant towards its repair.
Deputy Fitzpatrick and other Deputies spoke in favour of the previously existing arrangements whereby certain housing grant work was done locally by certain county councils and housing authorities. Under the new grant schemes for new houses and for house improvements, the position is very different from what it was. There is no provision in the new grant schemes—new house and improvement —for supplementary grants. Therefore, the local authorities' involvement in paying housing grants is practically ended. Furthermore, a national index had to be established to check if an applicant for the £1,000 grant had got a previous grant or already owned a house in any area of the country. Individual local authorities could not operate such an index. While the devolution experiments worked reasonably well in the past, the cost arising from combined central and local administration was high and uniformity of administration was lacking. Local information on the several matters referred to is not always available in the one local office while in large counties, such as Cork, Galway and Mayo, the county town is often far from the applicant's home.
Reference was made by some Deputies to the need for providing more housing accommodation suitable for elderly citizens. I have considerable sympathy with this suggestion and the subject is one to which I have given careful thought.
The most recent assessment by housing authorities of the housing needs of their areas, clearly established that there is a need to increase the amount of accommodation being provided for the elderly. My Department have encouraged local housing authorities to provide at least 10 per cent of their annual housing output as dwellings appropriate to elderly persons and small families and the financial allocations made to the authorities each year take into account their proposals in this regard.
The efforts of local authorities are supplemented by the work of voluntary housing associations. I have been concerned to note a continuing decline in recent years in the number of units provided by these voluntary associations and it gave me considerable satisfaction to be able very recently to announce some really worthwhile financial aids which should encourage a revival in this very important social work.
In future, local authorities may borrow from the local loans fund in order to make loans under section 12 of the Housing Act 1966 to meet up to 75 per cent of the approved cost of housing projects for the elderly operated by voluntary housing associations, excluding any grants. The making of the loans will be conditional on the association being engaged in housing elderly people at least 90 per cent of whom would otherwise be potentially eligible for local authority housing or institutional care at public expense.
The grants available under the housing Acts to voluntary housing association have also been greatly increased recently. Hitherto my Department could pay a maximum grant of £300 for each housing unit provided for the elderly, together with a grant of £50 a room up to a maximum of £250 for the provision of caretaker accommodation of such a scheme. With the Government's approval I have increased the maximum State grant to £1,000 per unit together with £200 per room up to a maximum of £1,000 for caretaker accommodation. This new scheme will apply to work commenced on or after 1 January 1978.
It has also been decided that where voluntary housing associations provide housing accommodation for elderly people the local authority may pay an annual subsidy equivalent to 25 per cent of the estimated average weekly economic rent on each new local authority dwelling provided during the preceding year. I trust, indeed I am confident, that these generous financial aids will give a big stimulus to the work of the voluntary associations which have been so concerned in the past and will continue, I am sure, to be concerned in the future with the housing of elderly persons.
While I am on the subject of voluntary bodies and housing, I should like to associate myself with the commendations of Deputy Taylor of the work being done by a rural housing organisation based in my constituency. The tribute was well deserved. Their efforts should be appreciated. This body is one for which I have the greatest admiration. I congratulate them on their achievement to date in my county and other counties. Through the work done by this rural housing organisation in the past few years many people are now able to live in houses in their own communities. I am confident that good work will continue and my Department will likewise continue to help. I am equally confident that the man who runs this scheme, Fr. Bohan, will win the national league.
Many Deputies referred to expenditure on roads. Without exception, they welcomed the increased provision for this very essential service. To remove any doubts about the scale of the increase in 1978 the figures I gave when introducing the Estimate bear repetition. The amount allocated in grants for the improvement and maintenance of the public road network this year comes to a total of £37.4 million. That is an increase of £10.8 million, slightly more than 40 per cent, on the allocation in February, 1977. I regard the contributions to the debate as an endorsement of my Government's intention, publicised in our pre-election programme, to give a definite shape to road policy to meet the needs of the coming decade. We gave this commitment.
It is understandable that people in rural Ireland will have their own priorities and their own ideas as to what should be done and it is proper they should express their views on these priorities through their elected representatives. There is another side to the question. Public representatives, while recognising local desires, also have a responsibility in acknowledging that national priorities cannot allow for the immediate implementation of the wishes of local communities. However, I am confident that in preparing a national roads plan we will be able to set a pattern for national priorities and at the same time allow for local initiatives in matters of local concern.
Deputy Tully said Members seemed to have set ideas about roads and he then went on to express his own set ideas about possible motorways or roads running through the city entailing the demolition of buildings and so on. I assume he was offering advice to Dublin Corporation. I noted Deputy Fergus O'Brien's reasonable response. He rightly said there was a fair amount of emotive talk on the subject of motorways blasting their way through cities and annihilating all in front of them. He did not think anybody supposed this would happen. He said nobody wants it to happen and it was never the intention that it should happen. I trust Deputy O'Brien's comment will set Deputy Tully's mind at rest and that the latter will now cease repeating the mythical fears he expressed here.
Deputy Keating was eloquent about another non-starter, a motorway over the canal. I thought this ghost had been well and truly laid long since, before indeed I took over as Minister, and I have no intention of reviving it. I can assure Deputy Keating on that point. As I said, I have an open mind on motorways. Where the standard can be justified by acceptable criteria, including environmental considerations, I will not be interpreted by Deputy Tully or anybody else as having set ideas on the subject. I emphasise again I have an open mind.
Deputy William O'Brien seems to be under a misapprehension about the block grant for roads. This grant supplements the provision made by local authorities for work on main roads other than national roads and for improvement works on country roads. It is the responsibility of each local authority to determine the priorities in the expenditure of the funds available to them, including the block grant, subject to certain broad guidelines specified by my Department.
Deputy Tully stressed, quite correctly, the importance of water supply and sewerage schemes. These services have a vital part to play in economic and social development. They are essential for housing and for commercial development. They are a precondition of the industrial expansion programme and can be a major factor influencing industrialists in deciding on the location of their enterprises. The protection of the environment depends heavily on satisfactory arrangements for the disposal of sewerage and other water-borne waste. Very significant headway has been made but that is not to say that there are not still deficiencies in many areas. The Government are fully aware of the need to keep up the pace of this programme. As I mentioned in opening the debate, the capital allocation this year is £29.235 million which represents an increase of more than 17 per cent on the outturn for 1977. Apart from continuing schemes already in progress, work will commence in 1978 on a number of major water supply and sewerage schemes.
Reference was made to the need for remedial action where pollution problems were being created by local authority sewerage schemes. As I said in my opening remarks, definite steps have been taken to cope with the problem at every location where the national survey of air and water pollution, carried out by the IIRS, found that sewage disposal was causing serious pollution. All new local authority sewerage schemes are designed to ensure that the effluent is disposed of without causing pollution in the receiving waters. In 31 sewerage schemes provided recently or now under construction, satisfactory disposal arrangements have been incorporated. The cost of these schemes is in the region of £23 million. Work is expected to commence soon on a further 22 such schemes at a cost of nearly £10 million. The pace at which inadequate sewerage disposal systems can be updated depends on the amount of capital that can be made available each year for water and sewerage programmes. The amount of capital which is available will determine the amount of work that is carried out in dealing with existing schemes.
Deputy M.P. Murphy asked about the conditions governing eligibility for aid for rural water schemes from the EEC European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, FEOGA. There are three main general conditions. First, 60 per cent or more of the total water supply being provided must be for agricultural purposes. Second, the appropriate county council or group must pay at least 20 per cent of the cost. Third, work must not commence before the EEC Commission acknowledge the application for aid. Schemes satisfying these broad criteria are forwarded to the EEC Commission by my Department at the request of the county council or group concerned. The decision to grant or refuse aid for a particular scheme is a matter for the Commission. As I indicated in my opening comments, aid totalling more than £5.6 million has already been allocated by the EEC for 174 such schemes.
I should now like to refer briefly to the record of An Bord Pleanála. In his speech Deputy Tully referred to the board and to the number of planning inspectors available for work on appeals. In recent years some difficulties have arisen in recruiting sufficient planning staff in my Department. Considerable efforts have been made to increase the number of qualified planners. Various measures have also been taken to reduce the backlog of appeals. Since An Bord Pleanála took over responsibility for appeals under the Planning Acts in March 1977, there has been a significant improvement in the situation. The backlog of appeals has been considerably reduced, even in one year. When the board first began dealing with appeals in March 1977 the number on hands was 2,177. I understand that in the first nine months in which the board dealt with appeals they received a further 2,705 appeals and disposed of 3,198 in that period. This represents a reduction of 493 in the number of appeals awaiting decision to 31 December 1977. In other words, a reduction of nearly 23 per cent compared with the position when the board took over in March 1977. I should like to take this opportunity to commend An Bord Pleanála on their achievement in such a short time.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I am glad that the Minister did consider acknowledging it. I could not help remarking that his opening speech barely referred to the board and was anything but generous to them.
The Chair takes this opportunity to inform the Minister that he has about 20 minutes left.
Thank you. I should like to refer to oil spillage, which is an important subject at present because of recent events near the coast of France. While the primary responsibility for the clearance of oil pollution rests on those responsible for causing spillages, contingency plans capable of being brought into operation as they are necessary at short notice to deal with the effects of oil spillages on our coasts have been prepared by the authorities concerned. It is inevitable that a number of different authorities will be involved in a matter like this. Firm arrangements have been made to ensure co-ordinated, effective and speedy action.
I should explain that my Department have general responsibility for arrangements for the clearance of oil pollution subject to the specific responsibilities of other Departments and bodies. Maritime local authorities who operate under the aegis of my Department are responsible for the clearance of oil from beaches and the immediate offshore. Harbour authorities deal with oil spillages in harbours for which they are responsible. The Minister for Defence is responsible for the clearance of oil at sea. The Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy has responsibility for oil spillages arising from offshore explorations. The Minister for Tourism and Transport administers the legislation which gives effect to international conventions aimed at eliminating the deliberate discharge of oil into the sea from ships and empowering States to take emergency action against ships which might pose a pollution threat to coastal waters following maritime casualties. The Minister for Fisheries is responsible for the protection of fisheries and wildlife and the Office of Public Works are concerned in relation to State harbours.
Maritime local authorities and harbour authorities, either individually or jointly, have, at the request and with the assistance of my Department, prepared contingency plans for the clearance of oil pollution from beaches and the immediate offshore. These plans, which were initiated in December 1972 generally cover such aspects as availability, training and mobilisation of the necessary manpower; availability of machinery, vehicles, boats and crews; the acquisition and storage at strategic locations of spraying equipment, oil recovery units, protective clothing, absorbents and other materials; the procedure for clearance of oil onshore and immediately off-shore; arrangements for co-ordination between the various national and local services involved; arrangements for cooperation with neighbouring areas; the location of suitable sites for the disposal of oil gathered from beaches or inlets; identification of parts of the coastline, for example, beaches of high amenity value, shell fisheries, bird sanctuaries and so on, which may require special attention. The Department of Fisheries advise local authorities in relation to the identification of special treatment for important fishery areas.
Oil pollution officers, who are responsible for bringing the contingency plans into operation as and when necessary, have been appointed by maritime local authorities and harbour authorities. These authorities have recognised the benefits of organising to combat oil pollution on a joint basis and such arrangements have been made in most areas.
The Department of Defence, with the assistance of a Sea Unit Committee, on which the various interests are represented, keep the arrangements for clearance of oil at sea under review. Reconnaisance by the Naval Service and the Air Corps and the communications equipment of that Department are of primary importance in monitoring and dealing with spillages. In the event of an oil spill at sea which may affect the shore, the Department of Defence would operate in close cooperation with coastal, local and harbour authorities.
Plans for dealing with any spills which may result from offshore oil operations are prepared by offshore oil operators at the request of and under the general surveillance of the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy. Stocks of spraying equipment, dispersant, booms, oil recovery units, absorbents, protective clothing and so on, are held by local and harbour authorities, the Department of Defence and other organisations.
The Marine Rescue Co-Ordination Centre at Shannon Airport acts as the communications centre for receipt and dissemination of information concerning oil slicks. Reports of oil pollution at sea, collision, foundering and so on of vessels, will normally be received by the centre from the vessel concerned, other vessels in the vicinity, or aircraft. On receipt of such a report, the centre, with the aid of information from air and surface craft, assesses the likely rate and direction of movement of the spillage, having regard to wind force and direction and currents in the area, and transmits all relevant information to oil pollution officers of the areas likely to be affected, my Department and the Department of Defence.
A liaison committee, chaired by an officer of my Department and representative of appropriate Government Departments, the County and City Managers' Association, the County and City Engineers' Association, the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and the Institution of Engineers of Ireland, keeps the contingency plans of the various bodies involved under review and ensures adequate co-ordination in all aspects of arrangements.
I mention this matter because it has become a very live issue and I am aware that many people have been worried and concerned about what might happen in the event of our coastline being threatened by such a spillage, as the coast of France was. We have contingency plans and are ready to tackle the problem. We hope it will not occur but it could occur from time to time because of the hundreds of millions of tons of crude oil and oil products which pass our southern shore each year. We have to be prepared and we are fully alive to the risks involved and we intend to be in a position to deal with them.
As I indicated at the outset, I have concentrated in my reply on the more important matters which cropped up during the debate. We have had for the first time for quite a few years a very wide-ranging debate on the activities of my Department. It is manifest from the interest the debate has evoked on both sides of the House that the services for which I have responsibility are indispensable to both the well-being of individuals in our community and the national economy as a whole.
Some may, perhaps, attempt to deny it, but the fact is that a lot has been, and is being, done in the environmental and local government fields. I do not hesitate to admit that much more remains to be done by my Department and in the local authority field if our resources were unlimited or the claims of other services were not pressing so relentlessly on Government. In the last resort it is the responsibility of Government to allocate resources fairly between competing demands. The Government have faced up to these problems in a resolute fashion and have treated the services of the Department of the Environment quite fairly this year.
When the Government took office on 5 July of last year, further moneys and supplementary funds were made available to each local authority in an effort to get these services moving. We are fully aware and conscious of the fact that the more infra-structures we achieve and the more facilities we make available, the more we are making a major contribution to our future economic development. As these facilities are made available in any area, it is normal that further development takes place immediately. We are fully conscious of the fact that a road development plan is necessary and we are working on this. We also appreciate that these matters cannot be achieved in one year but we intend to achieve them as we go along and as money becomes available to us.
Would the Minister clarify the position in relation to the abandonment of what was known as the essential repairs scheme which empowered a local authority, if necessary, to defray the total cost of essential repairs for people who were practically destitute and whose houses were structurally dangerous? This scheme has been abandoned. Would the Minister consider replacing it? He referred to the fact that local authorities can now borrow up to 75 per cent of the cost of housing elderly people. Will this be of some assistance in helping these people?
A brief question, Deputy.
What will replace the essential repairs scheme which the local authorities administered and which empowered them to defray the total cost of housing destitute people who were unable to make any contribution themselves?
The Deputy has made his point.
The essential repairs grant is under examination. When I mentioned the 75 per cent to which Deputy Taylor referred, I was alluding to the provision of new accommodation for elderly people. Many voluntary bodies have been providing this service down through the years.
Would the Minister consider giving equal assistance towards this scheme which made provision for destitute people?
We are examining the essential repairs grants.
Vote put and agreed to.