I move:
That a sum not exceeding £275,506,000 be granted to defray the charge which will in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1980 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.
I welcome the opportunity afforded by the opening of the debate on the annual estimates of my Department to review comprehensively the areas of responsibility entrusted to me. In doing so I shall outline how the policy of the Government bears on the activities of the Department. We shall see what the achievements have been in terms of economic and social well-being of the community. I shall cover in some detail the Government's policies and programmes in such areas as housing, water supply and sewerage, roads and the other traditional activities of the Department. I shall also speak of what is entailed in my special responsibilities as Minister for the Environment.
The net total of the Environment vote for 1980 is £275.506 million. That amount is an increase of £20 million on the amount voted in 1979. Compared with 1977 the increase is a staggering £189 million. The Environment vote in 1980 is not far short of 10 per cent of the total of the Estimates for the Public Services. Only the Social Welfare and Health Votes are larger. Deputies might find a few more long-term comparisons interesting. Just ten years ago, in 1970-71, the Department's vote was less than £12 million. In that year it absorbed less than 3 per cent of the total for voted services.
Large as it is, the provision in the Environment Vote is part only of what will be spent this year on the services of my Department and the local authorities operating under the Department. Money for the services also comes from some other Votes, from the Local Loans Fund and from local authorities' own resources, such as rates and miscellaneous items of income. When all these are reckoned the Department and the local authorities will, it is estimated, spend some £754 million in 1980. This figure compares with about £650 million in 1979, £566 million in 1978 and £446 million in 1977. The local authorities will have about £714 million to spend this year. They will themselves raise about £234 million of this amount. It follows, then, that central Government will be providing about £480 million to local authorities in the form of grants and capital issues from the Local Loans Fund. The corresponding figures in past years were about £422 million in 1979, £360 million in 1978 and £248 million in 1977.
The biggest single item in the Vote is the £106.565 million provided in subhead P for the grant to local authorities in relief of rates. This provision arises directly from the Government's undertaking to abolish, from 1 January 1978, rates on all domestic property, the domestic portion of mixed property, secondary schools, community halls and farm buildings not previously exempted from rates. These reliefs have been given a permanent statutory basis under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1978.
We should not underestimate either the importance or the scope of the rates reliefs. They extend to all dwelling accommodation in the country, secondary schools, community halls and farm buildings previously liable for rates. In 1979 relief was allowed in respect of a total of 974,000 separate ratings. I should, perhaps, mention that the decision on entitlement to relief from rates under the 1978 Act rests with the local authority concerned. However, the Act provides for an extensive system of appeals to give redress to any property owner who believes that he should benefit more fully from the reliefs.
The assumption by the State of liability for domestic rates, in addition to that which it already bears through the agricultural grant for rates on certain land, has greatly increased the level of Exchequer participation in the rating system. In 1976 the Exchequer, through the agricultural grant, contributed just £1 out of every £4 raised through the rating system. This year the Exchequer contribution by way of rates and rates-linked grants will be about £3 out of every £5 at an estimated cost of some £144 million. A liability of this size cannot simply be open-ended. In order, then, to ensure a fair alignment of local government needs with those of other sectors, I have this year set a limit of 10 per cent as the maximum amount by which 1980 rate poundages should exceed those for 1979.
This maximum increase achieves a number of purposes. It limits the increase in the rates burden falling on farmers, shopkeepers and other ratepayers in 1980. At the same time, it allows local authorities a reasonable margin within which to operate their developing services in line with a growing economy. I should stress, though, that there is no question of local authority expenditure being held back to 10 per cent more than in 1979. In the past two years similar limits also applied to rate increases. The limits were 11 per cent in 1978 and 10 per cent in 1979. However, in each of these years, because of valuation buoyancy and other factors local authorities were able to budget for increases in their gross current expenditure of 17 per cent and 17½ per cent over the preceding year.
These increases have enabled significant improvements to be made in local authority services. I am confident that in 1980 local authorities by prudent management of their resources, will be able to maintain their services at reasonable levels as in previous years. In many developing areas there will be scope for worthwhile improvements. In fact, because of new and increased valuations the permitted increase in rate poundages will give, in aggregate, an estimated 13 per cent increase to local authorities in their income from rates and from rates linked State grants. About £250 million, that is, some £29 million more than in 1979 will be available to local authorities from these sources alone in 1980.
I would emphasise that these changes in the system of local government finance have been brought about with the minimum of interference to the powers of local authorities. Subject only to the upper limit on the increase in rate poundages, local authorities have full discretion in ordering priorities in their estimates.
Environmental questions are occupying the public attention more and more. If we are to judge by the experience of other countries, this is a trend which will continue. The higher living standards become, the more people will be concerned with quality in their surroundings. In Ireland great change is in progress as we move to meet the needs in accommodation, jobs and community facilities of a young and increasing population, as urban areas expand and as industrial and agricultural development intensifies. Environmental quality will depend on how the physical surroundings are shaped and conditioned by these changes.
Local authorities carry out directly much of the most environmentally significant development; the housing programmes, the road development, the water supply and sewage disposal systems, parks and amenity schemes. In their service activities too—the operation of the planning and pollution control systems—the local authorities have a critical environmental role. They are at the heart of both making the physical environment and in its protection. Viewed in this way the horizons in local government are extending. They are not, as some would have it, contracting. The system will in the future assume even greater relevance and importance in the life of the community.
There are, of course, other influences shaping the environment. These include the programmes of the large number of State and semi-State organisations as well as the private sector. The diversity of these programmes is such that environmental policy must reflect a rational balance between the protection and conservation needs of the environment and the basic aims of Government policy in regard to economic development. Obviously such a policy affects the interest of various Ministers. It will need to be worked out in consultation with them, and considered and decided on by the Government. It is part of my extended function as Minister for the Environment to advance this process.
Already the Environment Council, which I set up to advise me on environmental matters has prepared a report entitled Towards an Environment Policy. The report has been published to encourage public debate. It is the first public paper of the kind in which the question of environment policy and the issues involved are discussed. While many bodies have responded by submitting views and ideas I must say I would have hoped for greater interest in the document, not least from the news media. Environmental controversy, it seems, is more newsworthy than the distinctly positive work of the council. The report refers to the importance of controls to ensure that material gains in living standards are not offset by disimprovements in the quality of life. This is an important issue. In general our environmental resources are in good condition. It must be ensured that they remain so while we continue to develop economically and socially.
It is more important than ever to ensure that the needs of the environment are fully considered and given adequate weight when decisions are taken which can affect it in significant ways. It is preeminently the role of the physical planning system to see that the right balance is struck. The system must be alert to the rights of the individual as well as to the interests of the environment. It must be alert also to the use of environmental arguments to cloak self-interest in opposing environmentally sound and beneficial developments. This, when it happens, does disservice not only to economic development and employment growth but, to the genuine interests of environmental protection and conservation as well.
The kind of policy which I have been talking about can only be developed gradually. The council's report is a good start. I now have asked the council as the next step, to prepare proposals for an initial policy statement of limited scope. This course seems preferable to waiting until something more comprehensive can be attempted. I expect to have the council's recommendations on this later in the year. I will then consider what further action on my part would be appropriate.
I have asked the Environment Council too, to advise on the questions of reporting on the state of the environment. I have asked for ideas on the means and procedures to be adopted so that progressively an accurate picture of the state of the environment can be presented to the public and updated from time to time. It is important that we should have a factual account of our environmental resources, conditions and problems. In this way we may become aware of any undersirable trends and be in a position to take corrective action.
Implementation of the European Community Action Programme on the Environment continues. It is, I suppose, understandable that the action programme is less newsworthy than certain other Community activities. But the servicing of that work imposes a considerable demand on my Department. It is a cause of some satisfaction that the period of the Irish Presidency in the Community was marked by important international developments relating to air pollution control.
At the EEC Council meeting of Ministers for the Environment last December it was agreed to adopt a directive, which had been under consideration for a long time, on health protection standards for sulphur dioxide and suspended particulate matter. These are among the most widespread of air pollutants, especially in urban areas. On that occasion a decision was adopted whereby member states undertook to prevent any increase in the capacity for producing certain chemicals which are suspected of causing damage to the earth's ozone layer and to reduce their use in aerosol cans. A directive on the protection of ground water against discharge of certain dangerous substances was also finally adopted.
Litter and the associated conditions of graffiti, flyposting and the abuse of public amenities, constitutes one of the most widespread and least excusable of our environmental problems. It is mainly an urban problem although it extends also into country areas including seaside and scenic locations. Visitors, including those from other member states of the European Community where standards in such matters are higher, are often taken aback by what they see here. The impressions can only be detrimental to our tourist trade. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that industry can be discouraged from establishing in locations where visual impressions suggest apathy and indifference. This is one environmental problem that could be solved without large investment or the development of new technologies. The remedy lies in our own hands. I asked the Environment Council some time ago to consider the litter problem and what might be done to improve the position. I have received a report from the council together with some recommendations. This report is at present being considered in my Department.
I have recently made regulations under the European Communities Act, 1972 to give effect to the EEC Directive on Waste which is designed to ensure that human health and the environment are protected against harmful effects caused by the collection, transport, treatment, storage and tipping of waste. Up to now the local authorities functions in the matter of waste disposal have related mainly to the disposal of domestic refuse. Under the regulations county councils and county borough corporations are now responsible for the planning, organisation and supervision of all types of waste—household, commercial and industrial. The authorities are also responsible for issuing permits to persons who dispose of waste on behalf of others. The authorities are also now required to prepare waste disposal plans. The availability of such plans will facilitate better overall management of waste disposal operations and should be of use to prospective industrialists wishing to locate in particular areas.
I made reference in the course of my reply to recent Dáil questions on water pollution to my dissatisfaction at the limited extent to which wide ranging powers under the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977 have been availed of by local authorities. I indicated that a more positive approach to the implementation of the Act was expected, something I proposed to pursue with local authorities. This has been done. A circular letter issued on 24 April which, while acknowledging that certain delays in the implementation of the Act may have been unavoidable, impressed on local authorities the urgent need for a determined effort to get a system of water pollution control under the Act operating properly without further delay.
Pollution of beaches and coastlines by oil spillages from tankers is another area of concern. Our east and south coasts are the most vulnerable. Our existing contingency arrangements for the clearance of oil pollution from beaches and immediately off-shore are constantly kept under review. The experience gained from the t02Christos Bitas t01incident in the Irish Sea in October 1978 and the t02Betelgeuse t01disaster in Bantry Bay in January 1979 is being used for the improvement of our arrangements to deal with a major oil spillage.
The Water Pollution Advisory Council gave me much valuable advice during the year on a broad range of water quality issues. A particularly noteworthy feature of their activities is the continuing development of an educational programme aimed at creating a greater public awareness of water pollution problems. They have recently produced a variety of striking posters highlighting the various beneficial uses of water and these have been widely distributed to the industrial and agricultural sectors as well as to schools, sporting groups and associations.
Output and employment in the building industry increased to a remarkable extent in the years 1978 and 1979. In 1978, output increased by 14 per cent in real terms and in 1979 by an estimated 12 per cent to 14 per cent. Since July 1977 some 10,000 additional jobs have been provided directly in the industry. A further 3,000 jobs have been created indirectly in ancillary industries such as manufacturers and suppliers of materials, furnishings and so on. This rapid and unprecedented growth was assisted by substantial increases in public investment affecting the industry. In 1980, despite the overriding need to reduce the extent of public borrowing, the Government have again provided a generous injection of capital for the industry.
This year £722 million is being made available in the Public Capital Programme for investment in housing, roads, water supply and sewerage, industrial development and other areas which directly affect the building industry. This represents an increase of 18 per cent on the 1979 expenditure of approximately £612 million. Whether or not the industry will continue to expand in 1980 will be determined to a significant extent by the level of wage and price increases. I see 1980 as a year of consolidation for the industry—a year in which the bottlenecks which occurred in certain sectors in recent years are eased and the employment gains safeguarded as far as practicable. The industry will then have a sound base for continued growth in the eighties.
The most important sector of the building industry is housing. The housing capital allocation for this year is £183 million. The size of this allocation reflects the Government's commitment to maintaining a substantial programme of housing completions. In fact, the Public Capital Programme allocation for housing in 1980 is the second highest allocation to any sector of the programme. Last year 26,544 houses were completed. It is satisfying to note that this figure represented an increase of 1,100 compared with 1978. The basic objective of Government housing policy is to ensure that, as far as the resources of the economy permit, every household can obtain a house of good standard, located in an acceptable environment, at a price or rent they can afford. A subsidiary aim is the encouragement of owner-occupation. In the latter context, it is noteworthy that the number of private house completions in 1979, at 20,330 was an all-time record. The total number of houses completed in 1980 may be somewhat lower than last year. However, completions should still exceed 25,000.
There has been steady progress in recent years in meeting housing needs. The level of annual housing completions has been high in keeping with the Government's targets fixed from time to time. I am anxious to ensure that the generous amounts of money made available by the Government for housing are channelled in the right direction. It is, therefore, imperative that up-to-date and accurate data be available to enable me to advise the Government objectively on the effectiveness of current policies to meet the needs of the eighties and to prepare estimates of capital requirements for housing on the basis of need. I have recently asked housing authorities to carry out a fresh assessment of housing needs in their areas to cover the period up to 31 March 1985. I have asked that the assessments be completed by the end of next September. I will then analyse the assessments with a view to updating housing policy to meet the needs of the eighties.
Subhead E.2. provides a sum of £23 million for the payment of private housing grants. From this amount £8.5 million is earmarked for new house grants. The remaining £14.5 million covers the various categories of house improvement grants. Expenditure on housing grants last year reached the all time record of £24.6 million. This figure compares with £14.5 million in 1978, and only £4.3 million in 1977. Deputies will, therefore, see that, while this year's provision is slightly down on last year's expenditure, it is still very large compared to that in earlier years.
Last year 8,078 grants of £1,000 were paid to first time owner-occupiers of new houses. As well, over 3,700 houses grants outstanding under the pre-July 1977 scheme were finally paid. This year, I expect that there may be a slight increase in the number of £1,000 grants falling due for payment. The number of "old" grants should be quite small.
With the exception of a few areas—where we are endeavouring to effect improvements—I am satisfied that the position regarding inspection delays on new houses is now relatively satisfactory.
The subject of house improvement grants has been discussed at length in the House, both at Question Time and in Private Members' time, since the Government decision to terminate the ordinary improvement grants scheme and the scheme of special grants to reduce dependence on oil. Suffice it for me to say at this stage that the Government are satisfied that, in the prevailing circumstances, we made the right decisions in relation to the deployment of the financial resources available to the housing sector. The termination was effected in a totally fair manner. Anyone who had made binding commitments to have work carried out was given ample time to make application The substantial increases, introduced concurrently with the ending of grants, in the loan and income limits applying to the local authority loans scheme should alleviate any hardship that would otherwise have been caused to people on moderate incomes, whose houses need repair or extension.
Before departing from this subject, I should say a word of appreciation for the understanding attitude adopted by the public towards the problems created for the housing grants section of my Department by the fact that the equivalent of almost a full year's normal applications was submitted during the latter part of January. Obviously it will take time to inspect the houses and pay grants in all these cases. We are doing our best to give as efficient a service as possible. Again, I have to ask applicants to be patient in the knowledge that they will receive their entitlements.
Last year £293 million was paid out by the four main lending agencies in house purchase loans. This amount represented an increase of £70 million in 1978. Building societies maintained their position as the largest contributor. Payments in 1979 from the societies exceeded £200 million. Local authorities contributed £50 million by way of ordinary loans and loans under the low-rise mortgage scheme. The balance was advanced by banks and assurance companies.
The building societies' investment and mortgage interest rates remained at 9 per cent and 14.15 per cent respectively during the year. As Deputies will know, the level at which societies pitch their investment rate is of the utmost importance in attracting new funds which will enable them to meet the demand for mortgage finance and assist in financing the Government's housing programme. In setting their investment rate societies are conscious of other competitive rates, mainly those of the associated banks. Traditionally, societies have always maintained a differential of as much as 1½ per cent to 2 per cent over the minimum bank investment rate. However, the societies' rate of 9 per cent, which operated throughout 1979, was 1 per cent below the minimum bank investment rate of 10 per cent which came into effect in June 1979. Because of the direct relationship between the investment rate and the mortgage rate, I know that in taking the decision not to increase their investment rate when the bank interest rate went up in June 1979, societies were conscious of the hardship which would be created for existing borrowers. However, the size of their inflows in the first half of 1979 consequent on the repatriation of external funds due to Ireland's entry to EMS also had a bearing on this decision and helped them to maintain record levels of payment in 1979 and into the first quarter of this year.
With the restrictive monetary policy being adopted by the US and Britain, worldwide increases in interest rates were anticipated in the early part of this year and already the associated banks have raised their minimum investment rate to 11.5 per cent. Consequent on these increases and having regard to the fall-off in inflow funds during February and March of this year, the building societies informed me of their proposal to increase their investment rate generally from 9.0 per cent to 10.75 per cent which would have the effect of increasing the mortgage rate to 16.5 per cent. Following several meetings, including a meeting with the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance, and myself, a working group was established to examine a number of considerations put forward with a view to either reducing the proposed mortgage rate or holding it at the level of 14.15 per cent and to make recommendations in this matter. The group were unanimous in their conclusion that an immediate increase in building society investment rates to 10.75 per cent generally was warranted with a consequent increase in the mortgage rate to 16.5 per cent. Following consideration of the report and conscious of the hardship which would be created for many borrowers, particularly first-time house purchasers, the Government decided to make available, on a temporary basis, a direct payment by way of subsidy to the societies for the purpose of enabling them to offer such rate of interest on shares and deposits as I may specify from time to time, thereby obviating the need to increase the mortgage rate from its existing level of 14.15 per cent. Having regard to the current level of interest rates generally I have specified an investment rate of 10.75 per cent for this purpose.
The payment is a temporary measure and the need for it will be kept under constant review in the light of changes in interest rates generally and the inflow of funds into the societies, and, in any event, will be reviewed within six months. The payment will be made to societies which provide audited certificates showing that their rate of interest on house purchase loans did not exceed the rate applying to home loans generally on 28 April 1980.
The subsidy will be paid six-monthly in arrears. While the investment rate was increased with effect from 1 May the subsidy will not apply until 1 June. As a result the cost to the Exchequer will be about £1.5 million in 1980—the cost for June alone because of the arrangement to pay the subsidy six-monthly in arrears. I will deal with this cost by way of a Supplementary Estimate later in the year. Before leaving building societies I should like to put on record the Government's appreciation of their co-operation both in their handling of the large inflows of EMS money which they received, by not releasing it too quickly onto the market and in their acceding to the Government's request that they should require a certificate of reasonable value or a certificate of exemption before making new house loans. These measures contributed to the stabilisation of house prices over the past few months.
The subsidy paid by the Exchequer in respect of guaranteed loans given by certain building societies to about 1,000 applicants in the Dublin area between 1969 and 1972 amounted to over £97,000 in 1979. The subsidy is estimated to cost £140,000 in 1980 and provision is made for it in subhead N.
The Government attach great importance to the local authority house purchase loans scheme. This is evidenced by the fact that since resuming office in July 1977, the maximum loan payable has been increased from £4,500 to £12,000, an increase of 166 per cent. The qualifying income limit has been increased from £2,350 to £5,500 per annum, an increase of 134 per cent. The recent increases in the loan and income limits will ensure that the scheme will continue to cater for the categories for whom it was intended. To meet the demand generated by increases in the loan and income limits a record sum of £58 million has been provided in this year's Public Capital Programme. This compares with expenditure of £45 million in 1979 and £27 million in 1978. By any standards this is an impressive increase in the funding of the scheme.
The low rise mortgage scheme enables persons who could not normally afford to rehouse themselves to become owner-occupiers. The scheme continues to operate satisfactorily. The maximum loan which may be advanced under the scheme has also been increased to £12,000 with effect from 1 February 1980. The total maximum subsidy towards loan repayments has been increased from £9 a week to £12 a week during the first year of the loan, diminishing gradually over a period of nine years. The scheme has particular attractions and I have recently asked all authorities to bring the scheme again to the notice of eligible persons in their areas.
The loan and income limits which govern the making of house improvement loans have also been increased with effect from 1 February 1980. The maximum secured loan has been increased from £2,500 to £4,000 and the unsecured loan from £600 to £1,000. The annual income limit for both loans is now £5,500.
Last year was a significant one as far as house prices were concerned. Early in the year prices were going up rapidly. The Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1979 contained provisions designed to strengthen and expand the scope of the controls on new house prices through the system of the CRV. With a few exceptions, these provisions were generally welcomed. In August, the Government asked the principal lending agencies to require a CRV before advancing loans for the purchase of new houses. The agencies have for some time been operating this requirement. The Government are appreciative of their co-operation in this regard. The requirement has brought many more houses within the scope of the CRV system. It has removed the incentive to builders to avoid the controls by building up-market houses, to the detriment of the first time owner-occupier who is usually seeking a more modest-type house. These measures were, in part, responsible for the stabilisation of house prices in the latter half of last year. Statistics published by my Department show that the average gross prices of new houses for which loans were approved by the main lending agencies in fact decreased in each of the last two quarters of 1979.
The local authority housing construction programme had a good year in 1979. This was so, in spite of trends of under-expenditure and low completions which lasted well into the year. There was a belated spate of completions by local authorities in December. It brought completions in 1979 to 6,214, compared with 6,073 in 1978 and 6,333 in 1977. As a result of the large number of houses completed in December, work in progress at the end of that month fell temporarily below 8,000. However, the level had risen to 8,312 by the end of January, 1980. Subject to what I have to say later about the continued rise in costs, it is hoped to complete some 6,000 houses again this year and to maintain the comparative stability that has characterised the programme in the last three years. The average number of dwellings under construction throughout 1979 was 8,564. This was very close to the figures of 8,636 for 1978, and 8,702 for 1977. The equivalent figure for 1976 was 8,195. The average total number of men employed on the programme increased in 1979 to 6,650 from 6,504 in 1978, 6,295 in 1977 and only 5,635 in 1976.
Thus, from the completions and employment aspects, the programme has been well maintained. Our main anxiety has been the continued high rate of increases in building costs. Because of the operation of market factors, it has been hard to get precisely comparative details of costs incorporated in tender prices. However, it is estimated from analyses of tender prices for similar types of houses within particular areas, that increases ranging from 16 per cent to 21 per cent, depending on locality, have occurred in the last 12 months. We have now moved into an era of a £20,000 cost for the average three-bedroom local authority house in a high cost area. No substantial amelioration of these high costs can be expected in the near future. I am hopeful, however, that recent cooling-off of the overheating evident in some areas may bring about greater competition for contracts.
These rises in costs make control of expenditure on the programme of almost £100 million complex and difficult. Stringent new control procedures must be introduced this year to discourage overspending by individual authorities to the detriment of other authorities who carefully control their programmes within authorised limits. Management of the programme will be greatly assisted in future years by the general introduction from 1 July 1980 of new standard cost control procedures worked out by An Foras Forbartha in conjunction with the National Building Elements Committee and my Department.
Although the trend of underexpenditure had been apparent for most of 1979, many authorities ended the year with substantial unauthorised increases in the debt balances on their accounts. These increases and escalating building costs have forced existing building commitments in 1980 up substantially. The total of capital allocations so far made to local authorities for existing commitments was so high that a comparatively small residue only remains to finance the release of new work this year. Some delay in the making of additional allocations for new work is, therefore, inevitable. Before committing more money to the programme, I will have to wait for a few months and establish the pattern of expenditure in the interim. I should emphasise that Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council have already got a special overall allocation, as in recent years, which includes a provision for new work and they should not be affected by any such delays.
Our overall targets for new starts this year should not be affected significantly by these arrangements. It should be possible to have increased starts later in the year to compensate for any temporary hold-up now. I know that Dublin authorities are not satisfied this year with the amounts of their allocations, particularly having regard to the unrealistic scale of their demands. I would, naturally, be only too pleased to assign them more money. We must, however, accept the facts about the current economic situation which demands certain limitations in public spending. The Dublin authorities have already got a greater share of available resources than the amount they would get if money were distributed entirely on the basis of the numbers of approved applicants for rehousing.
In this day and age we cannot tolerate families with high incomes occupying heavily subsidised local authority houses, while families in bad housing conditions must wait for rehousing. The provision in subhead E.1 for housing in 1980 is £62.5 million, an increase of £10 million on the expenditure in 1979. The major part of the subsidy goes towards recouping to local authorities the loan charges payable by them in respect of the provision of houses for renting.
With the approval of the Government and following meetings with officials representing local authorities and with the National Executive of the National Association of Tenants' Organisations, I introduced changes in the national rent scheme for local authority houses. Details were circulated to all local authorities on 26 March 1980. The new scheme is designed to ensure that tenants who can afford to do so will pay their fair share of rent and that no tenant should be required to pay a rent that he cannot reasonably afford.
On 22 February 1980 I introduced a revised tenant purchase scheme for the sale of local authority dwellings which will operate until 31 January 1981. The sale prices are generously subsidised from public funds and generally compare very favourably with the price of houses of a similar standard in the private sector.
I have asked city and county managers to prepare new plans for the accommodation of itinerant families in each area. The aim is to get plans which will match the needs in each area as established in the last annual census. As I see it, the total accommodation problem should be capable of solution within a relatively short period in many areas. I mean a solution involving the right combination of standard housing, chalets, long-term residential sites and short-term halting places.
In some areas, however, including a number of the larger urban centres, progress is less than satisfactory and serious problems remain. These situations will have to receive the priority attention of the local authorities concerned in the context of the plans to which I have referred. I know the difficulties, including the deplorably selfish opposition that is sometimes mounted against settlement schemes. These problems must be overcome, as they have been in many cases. This can be done through commitment on the part of the local authority, attention to the genuine concerns of settled communities, and careful design and supervision of schemes.
My Department will continue to provide every possible support and encouragement including financial support and the valuable advice and guidance of Mr. Victor Bewley, my special adviser on the programme.
I am glad to be able to report that significant progress continues to be made in the provision of water and sewerage services. Since the Government returned to office in 1977 the capital allocation for water supply and sewerage schemes has been increased from £24.91 million in 1977 to £40 million in 1980. In that period I have been able to approve a total of 132 major public water and sewerage schemes for commencement estimated to cost £85 million. During 1979 I raised the cost limit for small schemes from £20,000 to £30,000.
The impact of the increased flow of finance to sanitary services is naturally being felt at local level. Major schemes in progress include the greater Dublin drainage scheme at a total estimated cost of £36.5 million and the Liffey aqueduct water supply scheme at a total estimated cost of £9.8 million. These two schemes should cater for the water and sewerage requirements of Dublin into the nineties. They can be expanded to cater for longer term requirements. The Government have ensured that catering for the needs of Dublin, has not meant that the needs of other areas have been overlooked.
Major schemes in progress in other areas include the Cork city and harbour water supply scheme at an estimated total cost of £42 million, the Shannon south shore water supply scheme at an estimated cost of £6.6 million and the Castlebar water supply scheme at an estimated cost of £8 million. To finance the greatly increased level of investment, the Government have availed of every opportunity to secure financial assistance for water and sewerage schemes from EEC sources. In the last two-and-a-half years or so the EEC have approved grants totalling £11.4 million from the European Regional Development Fund for public water and sewerage schemes. Grants approved from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund for public and private rural water schemes have totalled £2.6 million and loans amounting to £128.5 million from the European Investment Bank for public water and sewerage schemes have been approved. Many of these loans will qualify for interest subsidies arising out of Ireland's membership of the European Monetary System.
The greatly increased level of investment in water supply and sewerage schemes gives rise to a substantial increase in the loan charges subsidy towards such schemes. In 1980, this subsidy will amount to almost £12.5 million compared with less than £10 million expended in 1979. A small part of this amount is attributable to swimming pools and sanitary conveniences.
Group water supply schemes continue to play a vital role in the drive to pipe water to rural dwellings and associated farms. There has been a tremendous upsurge in the number of these schemes undertaken by local communities with generous grant assistance from the Government. The number of houses in which water was installed by way of group schemes increased from 6,187 in 1976 to 10,940 in 1979 or by 77 per cent. The future prospects for group schemes are bright. At the end of last year, work was in progress on the installation of piped water in an additional 8,200 houses. Nearly 200 further schemes had been designed to serve almost 7,000 approximately.
Deputies are aware of the Government's commitment to the development of the public road network. The road development plan for the eighties was published last year. The plan outlined the priorities for state investment in this area in the decade ahead. A total of almost £48 million has been provided for expenditure on grant-aided road schemes in 1980. On foot of this provision I have been enabled to allocate grants to road authorities totalling over £53 million. This amount represents a significant commitment on behalf of the Government to tackle the deficiencies in the road system. It will enable road authorities to continue with their improvement and maintenance programmes in accordance with the objectives of the plan.
I am particularly concerned about the deterioration which has taken place in the standard of maintenance of some of the principal roads. Measured in terms of time and energy waste, wear and tear of vehicles and road accidents, the cost to the community of inadequate road surfaces is considerable. In conjunction with the notification to road authorities of the 1980 grants I have asked that each city and county manager pay particular attention, within the resources available, to the urgency of undertaking remedial measures through early identification and treatment of deficiencies. In this regard I have made grants for the specific purpose of the maintenance of the national routes totalling £9.336 million in 1980. That amount is almost 40 per cent more than the amount allocated at this time in 1979.
Returns by local authorities in 1979 showed that worthwhile progress was made with the local improvements scheme. I am glad to be able to allocate a further £2 million to the scheme this year.
A substantially increased amount of £260,000 is provided this year to meet the expenses of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety. Drunken driving continues to be a very serious problem. Of almost 9,000 specimens processed by the bureau last year, over 40 per cent had alcohol levels of more than double the legal limit. My Department are at present considering proposals for amendment of the law in the light of certain court decisions.
The amount of £363,000 made available this year to the National Road Safety Association is also significantly higher than last year. This should enable the association to continue and expand their work in developing a wider road safety consciousness in the public.
A sum of £2.525 million is provided under subhead M for the recoupment of licensing authorities of the expenses incurred by them in the registration and licensing of mechanically propolled vehicles and the issue of driving licences. The subhead also includes provision for expenses incurred in connection with the computerisation of vehicle registration. Progress on computerisation has been very satisfactory. Early this year the stage was reached at which details of all vehicles currently registered in the State were on computer. These records are directly available to the Garda in the detection of stolen vehicles, road traffic investigations and in the areas of crime and security.
In connection with the re-location of the vehicle registration unit of the Department in Shannon, the Office of Public Works have prepared plans for the office accommodation to be provided and expect that the accommodation will be ready for occupation during 1981.
The loss of life and the destruction of property resulting from fire must be a cause of deep concern to everybody. I have no doubt that these losses would be many many times greater but for the excellent work being done by fire brigade personnel. These people sometimes put their own lives at risk in order to preserve the lives and property of others. The country owes them a debt of gratitude.
Fire services are provided and maintained by local authorities. They have the primary responsibility to see that a reasonable service is provided. I am, however, concerned to ensure that the standard of the service keeps pace with the growing demands on it. I have initiated various measures to promote uniformity, standardisation and efficiency of the service and generally to support the development of the service by local authorities.
Among the more important measures being taken at present are the local reviews of the strenght and adequacy of the service. These reviews are at present being carried out by local authorities with guidance and support from my Department. Another high priority is the provision of guidance for local authorities on fire service standards. With the help of officers from various brigades, for which I would like to express my appreciation and thanks, a start has been made on the preparation of guidelines on a number of important aspects of the service.
Fire service training is of fundamental importance to the efficiency of the service. A greatly expanded programme of central training courses has been undertaken by my Department to supplement local training programmes. I should mention that there is now an excellent training centre available at Castlebridge, County Wexford. The centre was provided by Wexford County Council with financial assistance from my Department.
There must, of course, be an adequate level of investment in the fire service if reasonable provision is to be made for the protection of lives, property and employment in the event of fire. I am happy to say that the capital provision for the fire service has been increased significantly in the past few years. This year's provision will enable local authorities to press ahead with their programmes for the building of urgently needed fire stations and the acquisition of modern fire-fighting equipment. As a measure of the progress being achieved I should mention that 12 new fire stations or extensions were completed during the past two years, nine are at present under construction and a further 12 are expected to commence this year. In addition, proposals for financing the purchase of 34 new fire appliances were approved by my Department in the past two years.
An increase in fire prevention activity is a matter of the utmost importance. As an indication of my concern in this mattere in 1978 I established the Fire Prevention Council. One of that body's main functions is the promotion of greater awareness of fire hazards of all kinds. During 1979, the council initiated a publicity programme and conducted seminars for senior management of major industries in Dublin and Cork. I am glad to say that a greatly expanded programme of activities is being undertaken by the council this year. Provision has been included in subhead Q for payment of a grant of £50,000 in 1980 to the council. A similar amount will be contributed to the council by the Federation of Insurers in Ireland.
An adequate legislative framework is essential to the proper functioning of the fire service. The existing legislation which dates largely from 1940 is in need of review. Work is now under way on preparation of proposals for up-dating the legislation. I intend to press ahead as quickly as possble with this task.
The grant-in-aid to An Foras Forbartha this year amounts to £1,946 million. An Foras carry out research work in the areas of planning, construction, roads, water resources and environmental matters. The results of this work are normally published. The reports are made available to local authorities, Government Departments and other interested parties.
The administration and general expenses of An Bord Pleanála are met from the grant of £272,000 provided in subhead Q. The board had, up to last year's postal dispute, made commendable headway with reducing the number of appeals on hands. From a figure of 2,177 at the time appeal functions were taken over by the board in March 1977, the number of appeals on hands was reduced to 1,513 at the end of 1978. The postal dispute upset this progressively downward trend. At the end of 1979 there were 2,011 appeals on hands awaiting decisions. The board are now tackling the backlog. I am satisfied that by the end of this year the number of undecided appeals will be reduced substantially.
The problems of dereliction and social deprivation in the Dublin inner city area are of considerable concern to the Government and particularly to me as Minister for the Environment. Arising from the report of the Inter-departmental Committee on Dublin Inner City the Government decided in May 1979 to set up the inner city group. The task of the group was to develop a programme of action by the various public departments and agencies operating in the inner city area and to further the work of the inter-departmental committee. An allocation of £1 million was made to fund or assist projects approved by the group. In February of this year the Government decided that responsibility for Dublin inner city development should be transferred to my Department. In the light of this decision it was necessary to reconstitute the group. It now includes an assistant city manager to ensure closer liaison with Dublin Corporation, the main agency involved in the inner city area.
It is my intention that the special funds allocated to the group should be used to assist projects which would be seen as contributing to the rehabilitation of the area. Assistance has already been allocated to some projects. The new group will give priority to the examination of proposals in the employment and youth training fields.
I would like to explain that I do not envisage that my Department will have field officers working the area covered by the programme. The group will not have executive functions in connection with the implementation of the programme. Such functions will be discharged by the appropriate Departments and other agencies including the corporation.
The environmental improvement schemes programme which was introduced by the Government in August 1977, has resulted in the carrying out of many worthwhile schemes of environmental, recreational and amenity value to the community. It has also provided satisfying employment especially for young people. A sum of £3.85 million has been allocated to local authorities for 1980. This brings the total amount provided since inception of the programme to more than £12 million. This year £1.5 million is provided in subhead G of the Environment Vote. A further £2.3 million is being made available from the employment guarantee fund set up under the terms of the national understanding, £600,000, of which has been specially assigned for Dublin city by the committee administering the fund. An additional £50,000 has also been allocated to Dublin Corporation from the inner city fund with special reference to employment in the inner city area.
