I am particularly happy to contribute to a budget debate for the first time as Minister for the Environment. In addressing this House for the very first time in my new capacity as Minister for the Environment in October last I clearly put on record the firm commitment of the Government and myself to ensuring the future development and well-being of the building and construction industry, to maintaining a high level of housing completions each year and to ensuring an expanded programme of infrastructural services in order to further stimulate economic development.
The services for which I am responsible make very heavy demands on resources. I consider it very fitting that they should because the contribution of these services to the economy is immense. All sectors of our economy are affected in one way or another by these services, whether by reference to the houses or general environment in which people live, the roads system which is so essential to our industry, agriculture, and tourism industries, the provision of adequate water supplies for industrial, agricultural and domestic use or to a host of other services which are essential to the effective management of the economy.
This budget delivers on the commitment of the Government made by me in October last — it is, therefore, a cause of immense satisfaction to me. In a developing economy capital must always be limited relative to demands and of necessity there is, therefore, a keen competitiveness between the different services for the available resources. I am glad to say that all of the main services for which I am responsible have done very well and their continued expansion throughout 1981 is assured. I will be dealing in turn with each of these main services. At this stage I will simply put on record a few of the more striking and impressive facts and statistics: £87 million allocated to road authorities by way of grants for road works for 1981, an increase of 49 per cent on the allocations in 1980 and a massive 227 per cent increase on the level of grants allocated by Deputies on the opposite side of the House when last in Government in 1977, capital amounting to £74.7 million provided for sanitary services for 1981 as against £51 million in 1980, an increase of 47 per cent; an allocation of £242 million for housing for 1981 representing an increase of 33 per cent on the original provision of £183 million for 1980; the highest upper limit in any year at 12 per cent for 1981 on the increases in the rate in the pound to be struck by local authorities. The grant in relief of rates now stands at £121 million. I would like to remind Deputies that this grant arises from the decision taken by the Government on their return to office in 1977 to derate domestic and certain other property; still on the question of rates there is the introduction of further concessions for farmers who will now be fully exempted where the land valuations are under £50 rateable valuation and have 50 per cent relief in cases with land valuations of £50 or over but under £70; we also have a proposal to introduce a new special allowance of 100 per cent, which would be set against rental income, in respect of expenditure incurred on the construction of moderate-cost rented residential accommodation.
For the building industry this is a good budget. It gives further confirmation of the Government's commitment to the general wellbeing of the industry and in particular to the employment aspects, a commitment already incorporated in the agreed terms of the second national understanding. It will strengthen the relationship between government, industry and trade unions, based on positive goals and mutual trust. The building industry, as everyone knows, is a key industry, the second largest employer in the country. The health of this industry is vital to the health of the whole economy on two fronts: first, because of the level of employment it provides, and secondly, because it is the vehicle for providing a basic infrastructure necessary to support all other industry and vital social development.
The difference between the treatment of the building and construction industry under the Coalition Government and this Government is indeed striking. It is very difficult to understand the callous indifference of the Coalition Government when in office to the needs of the industry. Let us briefly examine the facts. During the years 1974, 1975 and 1976, which were the three full years in which the Coalition were in office, public capital investment in the building industry fell by 4.5 per cent, 7.2 per cent and 6.0 per cent, respectively — an uninterrupted slide downhill away from prosperity and into unemployment and depression. Output in the industry actually fell by 1 per cent in 1974 and by a further 7 per cent in 1975. In the mid-1970s, employment in the industry fell by at least 5,000. That is indeed a picture of unrelieved gloom. I can assure the House that there will be no repetition of this dismal performance by this Government. Our record speaks for itself. Between 1977 and 1979 output in the building industry rose sharply. Output in 1980 was about 28 per cent above the 1976 level, while direct employment increased by about 13,000 during this period. In 1980, when the current recession began to have its effect on the industry, the Government took immediate action and provided additional State support to the tune of over £92 million, again aimed at boosting confidence and stabilising employment. Faced with this type of problem at the end of 1973, the Coalition Government reduced public capital expenditure in each of the following three years with disastrous effects. Indeed, the effects were felt for years after, particularly through shortages of skilled operatives lost to the industry and disruption of design teams and contracting firms.
This should be a good year for the building industry. With their 1981 Investment Plan, the Government revealed their capital investment strategy for the years ahead. This strategy will increase building activity on a wide front, increase employment and generate confidence, not only in the building industry, but in many related industrial and service activities, while at the same time providing the essential infrastructure needed for further industrial and social development.
I would like now to speak on certain housing aspects of the Government's strategy. In order to put the housing situation in 1981 in context, I wish to outline what has actually been achieved in the recent past. Firstly, new house completions in 1980 totalled 27,785 — an all-time record. Deputies will have been aware of the steady growth in completions from 24,000 in 1976 to 24,500 in 1977, 25,400 in 1978 and 26,500 in 1979. Private new house completions in 1980, estimated at over 21,700 were also a record.
The provision for housing capital expenditure in 1981 at £242 million represents an increase of 33 per cent on the original provision of £183 million for 1980 and an increase of 20 per cent on the estimated outturn of £201 million. The 1981 provision shows an increase of 34 per cent in real terms compared to 1977. Expenditure between 1975 and 1977 in fact dropped by 57 per cent in real terms. Deputies may use the age old arguments that not enough money is being pushed into the housing area. Of course, I would like to have a free hand in the provision of finance for housing — what Minister for the Environment would not? — but I accept, and I think that all fairminded Deputies will agree, that the public purse has its limits and in the context of overall national financial resources housing has done extremely well this year, as indeed it should. Internationally, we compare favourably with other countries in terms of our rates of housing completions and investment in housing generally.
For the eighties, Government housing policy will continue to be directed to ensuring that, as far as the resources of our economy permit, every family can obtain a house of good standard, located in an acceptable environment at a price or rent they can afford. My predecessor asked local authorities in January 1980 to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the nature and extent of existing housing needs and needs expected to arise up to 1985. I expect the results of this assessment to be available within the next few weeks when they will form the basis of the Government housing strategies over the next five years or so. Pending the availability of the detailed results of this assessment Government housing policy continues to be kept under constant review.
I will deal now with some of the more important aspects of housing. Social housing continues to obtain a high level of funding from the public capital programme. The local authority housing programme experienced some difficulties in 1980. Prompt action was, however, taken to get over these; a review of the situation was undertaken and the Government authorised the allocation of an additional £12 million for local authority housebuilding. This ensured that building continued at a satisfactory level.
New house completions by local authorities in 1980 again topped the 6,000 mark. The Government have thus maintained the level of completions within the range 6,000 to 6,300 for the fourth year in succession. Despite the difficult period in mid-1980, average monthly employment last year actually increased to about 6,800 as against an average of 6,650 in 1979, and 5,600 in 1976. Overall then, I think the Government can be well satisfied with the performance in the local authority housing area, having completed another successful year of steady progress.
The indications for 1981 are that there will be some fall in the level of cost increases. However, the levels of claims by housing authorities for their programmes show that the demands on the available capital will be impossible to meet. This is in the normal order of things and I would be very surprised if local authorities did not ask for more than they could reasonably expect to get. However, I would ask authorities to appreciate that the pool of capital available for the pro-programme is not without its limits and that excessive demands from any area can be met only at the expense of other areas. I will give due consideration to the special claims pressed by authorities but I would ask authorities to resist the temptation to pursue completely unrealistic demands which make the already difficult task of fair allocation even more arduous.
With co-operation from authorities in this regard and with careful management of resources, I am confident that the total provision of £108.5 million for local authority housing in the public capital programme for this year will ensure that the programme is kept on course this year.
I mentioned earlier that a record number of private houses was completed last year. Local authorities continue to provide extremely valuable assistance to this sector by means of their ordinary house purchase and low-rise mortgage loan scheme. The Government are fully conscious of the importance of this scheme to the categories of persons who are not catered for by the commercial lending agencies and this is evidenced by the very substantial increases which have been made in the qualifying loan and income limits in the past three years. Since we resumed office in July 1977 the loan limit has been increased from £4,500 to £12,000 — an increase of 166 per cent while the income limit has been increased from £2,350 to £5,500 — an increase of 134 per cent.
An indication of the extent to which the scheme is fulfilling the purpose for which it was intended is the growth in the demand for the loans. The increase in the loan and income limits in January 1980 resulted in exceptionally heavy demand for payment in 1980 and consequently, put considerable pressure on the limited funds available. Although an unprecedentedly high allocation was made in the public capital programme for the loan schemes in 1980, it was necessary to allocate a further £7 million to meet increased demand during the year to bring the total available to about £63 million. This compares with expenditure of £17 million in 1977.
A record sum of £98.5 million has been made available for the house purchase and low rise mortgage schemes in 1981. This compares with £17 million in 1977. This is about 44 per cent greater than the amount provided in 1980. The provision of so substantial a sum is a further indication of the Government's commitment to ensuring that the schemes continue to cater for the deserving categories of persons for whom they are intended.
Building societies, who contribute approximately 70 per cent of house purchase loan finance, are dependent to a very large degree on the level of inflow of new funds from investors. Despite a drop in the level of inflows in the early part of 1980 societies were able to maintain a reasonably high level of approvals because of the exceptionally high inflows during 1979. The inflow situation was improved, however, as a result of the introduction of a subsidy in April 1980 which had the effect of allowing societies to increase their investment interest rate while maintaining the mortgage rate at 14.15 per cent. In coming to this decision to subsidise, the Government were extremely conscious of the heavy additional burden which would otherwise have fallen on house purchasers with building society loans to repay. In the absence of subsidy the additional repayments on an average loan of £16,000 would, for example, have been approximately £30 per month. While the primary aim of the subsidy was to eliminate the hardship which would have been caused to borrowers, the subsidy also had the desired effect of increasing inflows to societies, enabling them to make loans amounting to approximately £270 million in respect of an estimated record of 16,800 houses. I am confident that societies will also make an impressive contribution to the financing of the Government's housing programme in 1981. The downward trend in interest rates in the latter half of 1980 made it possible to terminate the subsidy with effect from 1 October 1980 and enabled building society mortgage rates generally to be reduced to 13.15 per cent.
Since my appointment as Minister for the Environment, on a number of occasions, both in this House and elsewhere, I have reiterated my own and the Government's commitment to the implementation of the programme of works identified in the Road Development Plan for the 1980s.
The importance of good roads to this country is evident from the fact that up to 95 per cent of internal passenger traffic and 85 per cent of freight traffic is carried on the road system. Road transport forms a significant element in agricultural, industrial and commercial costs, and it can be a deciding factor in the choice of location of new industry. The growth of tourism and of social development are related to the efficiency of the road system. Development generally brings a growing demand for higher standards — for road widening, by-passes, new access roads and bridges and for special attention to maintenance.
The Government, in their appreciation of the deficiencies of the road system and of the economic costs which these deficiencies impose, published the Road Development Plan for the 1980s. This plan outlines its objectives for the development of the road system in the current decade through the preservation of the overall network up to a satisfactory standard; the provision of an adequate strategic inter-urban road system connecting the principal towns, seaports and airports; the adoption of a minimum two-lane standard for the national route network, without prejudice to the necessity for higher standards for particular sections of that network; the provision of by-passes of towns on the national routes where these are considered necessary on planning, traffic or environmental grounds; a special programme to meet the need for new river crossings, ring roads and relief routes in the county boroughs and other major urban centres.
The recently published Investment Plan 1981 identified the major road network as deserving priority in increased infrastructure investment, on the lines proposed in the Road Development Plan. The Government this year will provide £80 million in grant expenditure for road improvement and maintenance works. This level of finance, unprecedented in the history of the State, is a positive demonstration of the Government's determination to bring the standard of the road network into line with the demands of today's transportation needs.
The provision of £80 million has enabled me to allocate this year grants to road authorities totalling £67 million for improvement works and £20 million for maintenance works. This represents an increase of 49 per cent on the road grants allocated last year and of a remarkable 227 per cent on the level of grants which were provided by the Coalition Government four years ago at the beginning of 1977.
The allocations which I have made for improvements include grants of more than £31 million for major works identified in the Road Development Plan. The grants provide for progress on 13 of the major works in the Dublin region including the commencement of a new road for the N 1 from Whitehall to the airport; a by-pass of Swords on the same route; Balbriggan by-pass; a new road linking Clontarf Road with the East Wall road; a new bridge in the vicinity of Heuston Bridge and a by-pass at Palmerstown on the N 4 to the west.
I have allocated grants for seven of the major works listed in the plan for Cork city including three new bridges over the Lee and a new ring road. For Limerick, Waterford and other large urban areas, I have provided grants for 14 of the major works identified in the plan, including ring roads in Limerick, new bridges in Waterford, Athlone and Galway and inner relief roads or ring roads in Sligo, Dundalk, Drogheda, Kilkenny, Tralee and Clonmel.
For other sections of the national routes I have provided grants for 47 of the major works identified in the plan, including the Naas by-pass; new Cork-Mallow road; new road through the Curragh; and ring roads or by-passes at Dunleer, Navan, Mullingar, Carrick-on-Shannon, Collooney, Ballinasloe, Oranmore, Roscrea, Donegal, Midleton and Dungarvan.
While the plan highlights the major works to be undertaken, it also provides for an extensive programme of normal improvement works designed to bring all sections of the national primary routes and significant sections of the national secondary routes up to a specified minimum standard. The programme will include realignments, provision of hard shoulders, eradication of accident black-spots and strengthening of pavements, and I have allocated grants of more than £21 million for such works in 1981. I have also provided substantial grants for road maintenance, block grants to supplement the resources of road authorities and grants for special works, including bridge works, on roads other than national roads. The need for the strengthening and renewal of critical sections of the principal roads has not been overlooked and the grant allocations I have made provide for expenditure of over £6 million for a special programme for such works.
The 1981 grants programme is an ambitious one by any standards. I am confident that the capacity and enterprise of the road authorities will meet the challenge offered to take a major step towards the development of a road network adequate for the 1980s and beyond.
One of the prime considerations of the Government when preparing the Investment Plan 1981 was the need to protect existing employment and to create as far as possible additional work opportunity. Road works as a means of generating employment has been well established in Ireland. Not only do they give a wide distribution of on-site employment throughout the country but also they afford substantial indirect employment in quarrying, plant and other related industries. The bulk of investment in roads is spent on Irish labour and materials and equipment of Irish manufacture and origin.
I am confident that the provision of £80 million this year will generate a significantly increased level of employment both on-site and in ancillary industries producing road-making materials and equipment. I expect that at least 11,500 road workers will be employed on the 1981 works programme of the road authorities which will represent an increase of over 600 such man-year jobs over 1980. On that point I have impressed on the managers of road authorities the need for the maximum use of Irish materials to ensure that employment in Irish firms is protected and increased.
Investment in road improvement works must be complemented by improvements in traffic management measures. The problem of traffic congestion is not only a source of frustration to road users and of damage to the environment of our cities but also imposes an unnecessary burden on the economy and threatens to place serious constraints on economic development. Though it would be difficult to quantify the costs of traffic congestion, its adverse effects in terms of energy wastage, disruption of public transport and delays to the system of distribution of goods and services are considerable.
In view of its position as the nation's principal commercial and industrial centre the traffic situation in Dublin gives most cause for concern. As well as disrupting the economic and social life of the city, the costs and delays caused by congestion have effects throughout the country and the economy. The Government accordingly have accepted the need for special measures and decisive action in order to tackle this problem effectively. The programme to be followed will involve co-ordinated action on a number of fronts with a role for both the public and private sector.
I recently made regulations under the Road Traffic Acts to provide for the necessary statutory traffic signs and roadway markings to enable the implementation of certain bus priority measures which will begin to take effect in the coming months. These measures are designed to assist the improvement of the operation of public transport.
The traffic problem in Dublin has been worsened by extensive illegal parking. To counteract this practice the Garda Commissioner has recently recruited the equivalent of 100 full-time traffic wardens, the results of which in terms of increased enforcement are already becoming evident. In view of the limited space which can be made available for on-street parking it is essential, particularly in the interests of the commercial life of the city, that priority be given to short-term parkers. On this principle Dublin Corporation recently installed an additional number of parking meters and propose to extend the system to further streets in the near future.
The provision of additional off-street parking spaces is, of course, essential. I am, therefore, glad to say that in both Dublin and Cork there are proposals in hands to provide such new facilities. These proposals, which are being pursued as a matter of priority, should provide approximately 950 additional parking spaces in Dublin and about 750 such spaces in Cork. It is particularly encouraging to note that interest has been shown by the private sector in participating in these developments which will be of considerable benefit to the commercial life of both cities as well as playing a vital role in contributing to a solution of traffic problems in these areas.
Apart from the country's public road network, there is a considerable mileage of "non-public" or accommodation roads, which are of particular importance to the agricultural community. The Local Improvements Scheme caters for the improvement of such roads, as well as for minor drainage works and so on, for the joint benefit of groups of farmers. The provision under this scheme has been increased to £2.714 million in 1981 compared with £2 million in 1980. The scheme is of particular benefit to the western counties and provides valuable seasonal employment in the rural areas. It is estimated that this year the scheme will provide the equivalent of 300 man-year jobs.
It is envisaged that a proportion of the expenditure on accommodation roads in the western counties under the local improvements scheme, as well as on selected county roads in these areas, will attract aid from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, known as FEOGA, under an EEC Regulation adopted last year. This regulation provides for aid for infrastructural improvements, including roads, for the stimulation of agricultural development in the western counties. A suitable programme has been submitted to the EEC for approval.
I am very conscious of the necessity to make our roads safer for all road users. The Road Development Plan, which as I have indicated will be pushed ahead vigorously under this year's road works programme, clearly spells out road safety as an important objective. As well as providing improvements in transport, efficiency and mobility the plan aims at removing accident black spots, better standards of signposting, road markings and so on, all of which can contribute positively to reducing the risk of accidents.
Continued support is being provided for the roads research work af An Foras Forbartha which provides a valuable base for the formulation and implementation of policy in relation to road planning and construction, the improvement of traffic management and the promotion of road safety generally.
The Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978, has enabled the Garda to pursue vigorous action against the drinking driver. The grant to the Medical Bureau of Road Safety has been increased substantially this year to £315,000 to enable it to deal with the increasing number of specimens received from the Garda Síochána for analysis. The number of specimens analysed by the bureau in the first nine months of 1980, the latest available statistics was 6,897, This represents an increase of 12 per cent over the same period in 1979 and is equivalent to an annual rate of 9,200. A disturbing feature is the large percentage of specimens which exceed the legal blood alcohol concentration limit and, more especially, the 40 per cent which have over twice the legal limit. These figures show that there is a very substantial body of persons who regularly drive after drinking heavily. It is the duty of all responsible people to do everything in their power to curtail these practices. Amending legislation will come before the House in the near future which will clarify and rectify some of the existing provisions in the law dealing with driving while under the influence of alcohol so that enforcement measures will take their full effect.
The major responsibility for the practice and promotion of road safety rests and will always rest on individual road users. It is the actions of each of us, whether driver, cyclist or pedestrian, that determine whether the roads will be safe for ourselves and for others. This is a heavy responsibility but one which we must face up to if we are to discharge it properly. The provisional statistics of road accidents in 1980, which show the lowest number of fatalities since 1976 and a reduction compared to 1979 in the number of people injured, are some encouragement to the belief that people are gradually responding to the need to show more care and consideration on the roads. The development of an awareness of, and the responsibility of the road user for, safe road behaviour is the task of road safety education and publicity. It is not an easy task but one which has been faced up to with considerable success by the National Road Safety Association, whose activities are to a large extent funded by an annual grant from my Department. It is hoped that the association's achievements in securing sponsorship from the private sector for a number of valuable road safety projects will encourage an even wider range of interests throughout the country to become involved in aiding this valuable work,
Since returning to office the Government increased the capital provision for public water and sewerage schemes by almost 90 per cent — from less than £25 million in 1977 to £46.75 million in 1980. The sanitary services programme is benefiting from the Government's commitment to increased infrastructural investment in the Investment Plan 1981. As a result the present year will see a huge increase on the previous level of investment, with £66 million in capital being made available for the public water and sewerage programmes — a massive increase on the 1980 non-voted capital provision for public schemes. In addition, £7.4 million is being provided for group schemes grants and £1.3 million for special grants for public schemes in western counties, giving a total of £74.7 million. This will permit a considerable expansion of the programme and will clear the backlog of major schemes at tender stage. I have recently sanctioned the seeking of tenders for 11 major schemes estimated to cost £6.75 million, and will shortly sanction tenders for a further four schemes estimated to cost £3.5 million. In addition I am approving contract documents for a further number of major schemes estimated to cost £25 million. Contract documents for further schemes will be approved as soon as the capital allocations to individual sanitary authorities have been finalised.
Small public water and sewerage extensions are frequently required to cater for unforeseen developments at local level and to cater for urgent building proposals. Proposed small schemes need not be submitted individually to my Department for approval. Local authorities submit statements annually of the small scheme proposals they intend to carry out. A global allocation is subsequently made to the local authorities who can then proceed to carry out the most urgent works involved. The Government increased the capital cost limit for small schemes from £20,000 to £30,000 in 1978.
I am now happy to inform the House that I intend to increase spending on these small schemes by 50 per cent in 1981.
The large-scale building of industries, houses, factories and other buildings is using up serviced land at an estimated rate of over 6,000 acres per annum. New water and sewerage schemes must be approved and undertaken now to ensure that an adequate stock of serviced land is available to allow this country to take advantage of a future upturn in the climate for private investment at home and abroad. Failure to make provision for medium-and long-term water and sewerage requirements would lead to acute shortages of serviced sites and the loss of potential industries dependent on sanitary services. Such a shortage would also cause inflation in land prices and thereby increase the cost of building factories, houses and community buildings including schools and hospitals. I am proud that this Government, despite the current difficulties in the national and world economies, have had the courage and the conviction to invest heavily now in sanitary services. In this way we will build a sound basis for the future economic expansion of our country.
Successive industrial plans published by the Industrial Development Authority have emphasised the importance of an adequate network of piped water and sewerage schemes to attracting new industries and to the advance factory programmes. Moreover, the Government and the IDA are determined that industrial development will proceed in a way which is consistent with protecting our environment — which is part of our natural heritage. This requires the construction of new and improved sewerage schemes which are capable of safely disposing of the growing volume of effluent generated by industrial development. As Minister for the Environment, I am determined that a sustained effort should be made, over a period of years, to eliminate pollution caused by the overloading of existing public sewage disposal systems.
Rural Deputies will be aware that modern farming requires adequate supplies of wholesome water. A farm without piped water supplies has limited potential for expanding livestock numbers, milk production and for the improvements in farm hygiene so essential to animal health. Many farmers still have to spend undue time and effort in drawing water to their holdings. Agriculture is a cornerstone of the Irish economy and we simply cannot afford to have the modernisation of farming impeded by deficiencies in water supplies. This is why I intend to approve a number of county council water schemes this year which will cater for the servicing of several thousand farms and for the development and expansion of the food processing industries.
Private group water schemes play a major role in bringing piped water to rural houses and associated farms. Group schemes have installed water in a total of almost 90,000 houses, including almost 10,300 grant-aided installations made in 1980. The future prospects of group schemes are bright. At 31 December 1980 220 schemes had been designed to serve over 7,100 houses; Work was in progress in installing water in a further 7,300 houses approximately; about 1,500 schemes were at earlier stages of development including the location and testing of suitable sources, preparation of designs and so on. The level of group scheme activity will receive a big boost in 1981 and future years as a result of aid being available from the FEOGA under the Western Package approved in July last year. An outline programme has been submitted to the EEC Commission for approval. As soon as this programme is approved, I will be in a position to announce details of increased grants for group schemes in the western areas.
I have dealt at some length with the major services for which my Department have responsibility. I would now like to move on to some of the other areas in which, although they could not be classed in the same category as housing, roads and sanitary services from an expenditure point of view, nevertheless, are very important in their own right and of vital importance to the whole community.
It is essential that an adequate level of capital investment in the fire service be maintained if lives, property and jobs are to be given reasonable protection against the effects of fire outbreaks. Capital investment in fire stations and equipment has increased significantly in the last few years and I am confident that this year's provision of £2.5 million will enable local authorities to continue to make good progress with their programmes for the provision of urgently-needed fire stations and the acquisition of modern fire fighting equipment. As a measure of the progress being made, I would mention that 14 new or improved fire stations have been completed during the last three years, 11 are at present under construction and a further six are expected to get under way shortly. In addition proposals for financing the purchase of 44 new fire appliances, crash rescue, communications and other fire service equipment were approved by my Department in the same period.
For many years the public library service received a very scarce allocation of capital for new or improved buildings and other facilities. In fact, as late as 1977 the relevant provision stood at just £290,000. It is encouraging, however, that since 1978 the capital provision for investment in libraries has increased significantly. This pattern will be maintained in 1981 with over £1.4 million in capital being made available to public libraries. In all, about £5½ million has been assigned for this purpose between 1978 and 1981, which is approximately four times the amount provided in the previous four years. This, together with increased revenue spending on public libraries by local authorities is making for a very real improvement in the spread and quality of this important service.
The inner city of Dublin is also an area with which I am concerned. Responsibility for the Inner City Group and Fund was transferred to the Minister for the Environment in February 1980. The group have been active in a number of areas in the economic, social and education fields and have allocated approximately £824,000 to date from the Inner City Fund for inner city projects. Assistance is being given to local co-operatives. Grants have been given for the provision of recreational facilities and for employment in environmental improvement schemes including a special tree planting scheme. Money is also being made available for improvements to inner city schools and for the provision of teaching equipment. A special inner city employment programme is being implemented by the National Manpower Service on behalf of the group. The programme is in operation from 1 January and under it any employer who employs people from a special inner city register will receive a premium of £30 per week up to a maximum of 26 weeks for each adult worker employed. It is hoped that up to 200 people may be employed under the programme.
Additional money is being made available to the Inner City Fund this year to enable the group to continue their work of alleviating the many problems of the inner city.
We are not the only country experiencing problems of urban dereliction. Most developed countries have similar problems. With a view to stimulating interest in urban problems and to accumulating ideas for their solution the Council of Europe have decided to sponsor, during the current year, a campaign for urban renaissance. To organise our participation in the campaign a national committee has been set up under my chairmanship and it is currently involved in assessing national demonstration projects from local authorities and the private sector which will be reported on to the Council of Europe and which illustrate various aspects of urban renewal and improvement. It is hoped that the campaign will encourage greater co-operation between local communities, business sector and local authorities in seeking solutions to problems of urban dereliction and in carrying our renewal schemes.
While a budget debate naturally tends to be concerned for the most part with practical financial and economic matters we must not lose sight of other issues which are vitally important in modern society. Good environmental conditions are in more demand and are now more highly valued than ever before. Many of the major financial provisions in the budget will have environmental and pollution implications. Our physical environment is coming under increasing pressure as our population increases, towns expand and our economic development proceeds. Industrial, agricultural and infrastructural developments can have far-reaching environmental consequences. A new sense of environmental responsibility is, therefore, necessary, from individuals, local communities, private and public bodies. As Minister for the Environment I have the specific function of promoting the protection and improvement of the physical environment.
The quality of the environment is a matter of direct concern to all of us and in recent years there has been an increasing public debate on many environmental issues. I welcome the growth of public interest and involvement as an expression of the general concern to protect the good quality of our amenities and natural resources. The public, after all, can be the best watchdog in such matters provided concern for the environment does not impose unreasonable conditions on legitimate development.
The Government are committed to the continuing growth and expansion of economic activity in order to provide increased job opportunities for our people and raise the standard of living. The resulting development, and other changes taking place in our society, such as the growth and movement of population, the increasing trend to urban living, the increase in tourism and the demands for better recreational facilities, are increasing the pressures on the environment. We must ensure that we are in a position to deal with these pressures so that the quality of the environment does not suffer as a result. We are fortunate that, despite some problem areas, we still have a very pleasant natural environment and the overall quality is high.
The Government are taking steps to ensure that progress in economic and social improvements is not offset by a deterioration in environmental conditions. In particular, infrastructural services are being improved so that development will be facilitated without harming the environment. This year, the Government are substantially increasing investment for this purpose. In so far as my Department are concerned, I have already mentioned the significant increases in the level of finance being made available for housing, roads, water supply and sewerage facilities. This expenditure will generate additional employment, encourage private investment, facilitate further development and help to ensure that environmental resources and amenities do not suffer.
The State will continue to play a major part in funding investment and, indeed, in carrying out development. This may be done through the local authorities, as in my Department, or through the activities of other State and semi-State organisations. A good standard in these developments, together with the physical planning and pollution controls on development generally will continue to play a significant part in determining the quality of our future environmental conditions. In this respect it is important that the needs of the environment must be given adequate consideration when investment decisions are being taken. Such consideration will be greatly facilitated by a national environment policy, which I intend to develop. The adoption of such a policy will be an important step in ensuring that our environment is protected for the future. The environment council have recently prepared a report on this subject which is being considered in my Department and I hope to be in a position to say more about it before long.
The question of the disposal of toxic and dangerous waste has been prominent in recent times. Such prominence is, indeed, fully justified by the importance of the subject. I would like to assure the House that the question of the measures that can be taken to improve our capacity for dealing with this problem is under active consideration at present. A team comprising experts from the IIRS, the Geological Survey Office and my Department have been studying the various options open for the disposal of dangerous wastes for the last few months. I hope to have their report and to be in a position to consider these options very soon.
As Deputies will be aware I recently visited Denmark with some of my officials in order to observe at first hand the manner in which problem wastes are dealt with in that country. I have no doubt that what I saw and learned there will be of value to us as we proceed to consider the arrangements that can best enable us to deal effectively with our own particular circumstances. It is evident that local authorities will have an important part to play in the future arrangements to be made to ensure that industrial development and employment growth will not be impeded for want of an adequate and safe system for the accommodation of industrial wastes.
I believe that the litter problem is our most widespread and inexcusable environmental problem. The Environment Council have described the litter problem, rightly in my view, as "a national scandal". It is totally unnecessary because we carelessly create it ourselves. Its effects on our national image are devastating particularly when our visitors see recreational and scenic areas, and public places generally, littered with refuse of all descriptions. We must convince people that litter is simply not acceptable. A new community based awareness of benefits in keeping street and countryside clean, tidy and beautiful is required. Litter is essentially a local problem and without the support and involvement of local communities the problem will never be solved. Local authorities are the prime custodians of the environment and they have a leading role to play in this task. By their leadership and encouragement much can be achieved locally by their efforts.
Many local authorities have made considerable efforts, including anti-litter campaigns, and at some considerable cost, to deal with the problem but generally to little effect. Bord Fáilte ran a very commendable campaign last year. Young people are frequently blamed as the major cause of litter but even casual observation would show that many adults are just as blameworthy in this respect.
There is need now for stronger and more co-ordinated action. There are no easy answers and no instant solutions. Attention is being given in my Department to a number of anti-litter activities. The Litter Bill that I will shortly be introducing is one aspect of an important element in what will be a long term programme of action to deal with this problem. I do not wish to go into detail about the Bill at this stage beyond stating that it will strengthen the powers for dealing with litter offenders and enable more effective arrangements to be made for controlling litter. It will also provide for action on abandoned vehicles and unsightly accumulations of disused vehicles and other articles which can be an eyesore in many areas.
Our pattern of behaviour and attitudes of indifference need to change and in the longer term an educational programme gives the best hope of improvement. My Department are in consultation with the Department of Education on this matter at present. Also, an anti-litter leaflet is being prepared in my Department, which I hope to have distributed widely at an early date.
Deputies will be aware that local authorities have been notified that I have determined 12 per cent to be the upper limit on increases in the rate in the pound to be struck by local authorities for 1981 over the rate in the pound struck by them for 1980. This is the highest limit in any year since the burden of rates was removed from householders. I think it would be as well for me at this stage to spell out what the effects of this limit are.
The most direct effect is on those people who pay rates, industrialists, shopkeepers, business people of all sorts and some farmers. The upper limit means that on the same effective valuation as in 1980 a ceiling of 12 per cent is put on the maximum increase in their rates liability for 1981. The actual increase in liability will depend on whatever increase within the 12 per cent limit is determined by each local authority. I make no apology for taking action to limit the burden on ratepayers in this way. Those who have criticised the limit as too low might well explain that what they are advocating is an increase in the burden on the industrialists, small shopkeepers, hoteliers and others who pay rates.
A second main effect is that the limit helps to hold a reasonable balance between central and local expenditure. The cost of the removal of rates from dwellings, community halls, secondary schools and certain farm buildings is met by the Exchequer. The upper limit on rate increases is a mechanism by which understandable aspirations of local authorities to improve and extend their ordinary day-to-day services is balanced against the cost to the Exchequer.
Perhaps the most relevant aspect in the context of this debate, and the least understood, is the effect on local finance. Critics of the 12 per cent increase have represented it as a measure of the increase in local authority expenditure in 1981 as compared to 1980. It is no such thing. The 12 per cent is not in any way a measure of the extra money local authorities will have to spend for 1981. What local authorities have to spend in any year depends on a whole series of items, such as their capital allocations, income from direct charges, rents, housing loans repayments and so forth, State grants for a whole range of individual programmes, as well as the income from rates and from those State grants related directly to rates. Of these only rates and the State grants directly related to rates, such as domestic rates relief and agricultural grant, are influenced by the rate limit. But these account for only about one third of the total capital and current spending of local authorities.
Even this one-third is not limited by the 12 per cent. Buoyancy of valuations which is about 3 per cent per annum for the whole country increases this part of local income before any rate increase is added. The comparison between current expenditure of local authorities, leaving out capital altogether, and the rate limits shows how wrong it is to regard the upper rate limit as a measure of local authority expenditure. Since we removed the burden of rates from householders, the cumulative maximum increase in rate limits has been 34 per cent. This is made up of the 11 per cent for 1978, 10 per cent for 1979 and a further 10 per cent for 1980. In the same period the total current expenditure of local authorities went up by 62 per cent. The current expenditure of local authorities in 1977 was £317 million. The 62 per cent increase means that there has been a massive increase of almost £200 million in three years to bring the current spending of local authorities in 1980 up to £516 million.
Let me repeat, this increase of nearly £200 million or 62 per cent in three years relates to current expenditure alone, and current expenditure gives only part of the picture. If capital is taken into account, total expenditure of local authorities jumped from £439 million in 1977 to £744 million in 1980. This is an increase of £305 million or 69 per cent in the same period when the cumulative increase in the rate limits was 34 per cent.
These figures speak for themselves. It may be useful though to take a single year. To take 1980 alone — local authorities were able to budget in respect of 1980 for current spending of £516 million or £76 million, 18 per cent more than the previous year.
In 1980, when current and capital spending are taken together, local authorities were able to budget for spending about £129 million more than in 1979, an increase of almost 21 per cent. Yet in respect of 1980 the upper limit placed on the size of increases in the rate in the pound was 10 per cent. The expenditure of local authorities, between current and capital rose, not by 10 per cent, but by 21 per cent in 1980 over 1979.
It will be clear from these facts that the upper limit of 12 per cent is not a measure of the extra money local authorities will have to spend in 1981. Apart altogether from the decisions local authorities might take when they come to consider their rates estimates, the allocations already announced for road grants, capital for water and sewerage and housing will clear the way for an expansion in local services and employment.
The one criticism which cannot validly be made for the main services such as roads, sanitary services, housing, and so on, for which I am responsible is that the funds provided are inadequate. Yet my colleagues on the opposite side will make this criticism — a clear indication of how bereft they are of any worthwhile ideas. However, before making this type of ridiculous criticism they would do well to look back at their own abysmal record when in office.
