Supplementary Estimate, 1981: Vote 29: Environment (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £30,363,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1981, 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, subsidies and grants including certain grants-in-aid.

—(Minister for the Environment.)

Mr. Raphael Burke

I was making the point that in the letter which the Minister for the Environment has circulated to the Chairmen of all the local authorities, he asked for their observations of the question of rates and charges to be imposed by them to secure improvements in their funding. I was assuring the House that the Fianna Fáil Party are totally opposed to the reimposition of rates under any guise. However, the second part of the circular from the Minister refers to the reorganisation of local government. It should be the role of the Minister to put forward proposals in this matter rather than to request comments from the local authorities. In putting forward his proposals I would ask the Minister to take special note of the role of the community organisations, the voluntary community associations, community councils and the various residents and tenants associations, because within the local government structure there should be a special place for these fora of local democracy that have been developed in the past 15 to 20 years. These various organisations have been doing superb work. They developed originally in the major urban areas of Dublin, Cork and Galway but they have extended into the rural areas. In whatever proposals are put forward for the re-organisation of local government the Minister should provide for the involvement of the community councils and tenants associations.

In regard to infrastructure generally, I would remind the House that my predecessor, Deputy Barrett, accepted the major road development plan for the eighties. That was a ten-year programme which envisaged the improvement of the major roads between towns, the by-passing of existing towns and the development of access to ports and airports so that the industrial programme in which we are engaged and the expansion of housing schemes could be facilitated in terms of adequate road structure. We took the courageous step at the time of committing large allocations of money to the roads plan this year but we are now told by the Government that we should not borrow for such purposes. They tell us that our national borrowings are too high. I reject totally the theory that we should not borrow in the long term in order to provide a proper road structure. If we are to have serviced land a proper telecommunications network and a road structure adequate for our industrial development and if we are to have proper schools and a general industrial base we must engage in long-term borrowing. In Government we involved ourselves in such borrowing for the roads programme. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister of State that that programme will be continued in the same dynamic manner in which we tackled it. This year I sanctioned proposals for road works dealing with 85 to 90 per cent of all of the items listed in the schedule of the programme or of the Blue Book as it is called. The work was to be undertaken at various stages. Some of it related to construction, some to the purchase of land and some to planning.

Talking of roads leads me to the question of the disgraceful decision of the Government to reintroduce road tax on those vehicles from which we had removed it. In June last the Government made no mention of their intention to reintroduce this tax, just as they failed to tell the people about the many other changes they were making such as the removal of the mortgage interest subsidy. I want the Minister to assure me that the total revenue that will accrue from the reintroduction of road tax will be spent on the roads programme.

We were involved in a programme of including the private sector in the road construction programme. I was very pleased to hear one of the Fine Gael Deputies speak of this commitment to the toll road project proposals and to the benefits that would accrue from this move. I had the privilege of signing the permission for the new bridge over the Liffey but I should like to see that work proceeding as soon as possible. By way of encouraging the private sector to become involved in the roads and bridges programme, the setting of the totals should be the decision of the Government and not of the local authorities. I say this having regard to the Government's overall control of the programme. It was my intention that the setting of tolls would be a matter for the Government and therefore I shall welcome and facilitate in so far as possible the passing of any legislation to change the present situation.

The Minister should encourage the Government to proceed with the development of the library service. In rural areas where it is not always possible to build and furnish permanent libraries in every town and village the Minister should encourage by way of grants and subsidies the mobile library system. Our aim should be for a full mobile library service in every town and village in which there is not a permanent library. Some local authorities have been very active in this regard but there are other areas in which there has been no mobile library programme. The matter is one that should be tackled at national level and with specific guidelines set down.

Regarding the travelling people, I know that the Government are awaiting the report of the committee set up by the Minister for Health and the Minister for the Environment and who are to report later this year. In the meantime I would draw attention to a major problem that is developing particularly in the Dublin region as a result of a court decision given in respect of one itinerant family. I am not in any way questioning the right of the judge in that case to reach the particular decision but the position is now that the local authorities are hiding behind the decision and are failing to take action to facilitate the settling of travelling people. I call on the Minister to use his offices to ensure that local authorities act on the question of the designation of trading areas within the terms of the Casual Trading Act which was brought into force last year. There is a very serious problem as a result of casual trading by itinerants. Apart from the danger to themselves they endanger other road users but in addition they are engaging in unfair competition for the businessman and the shopkeeper who must pay rates, taxes and other overheads. These fly-by-night traders park on the perimeters of towns, clear out the business for a particular sector and then move on.

Another matter of concern is the question of what action the Government are taking on industrial and toxic waste. When in Government I introduced a strategy for the treatment of such waste. Specific proposals were made early on in the life of this Government and we were assured by the Minister for the Environment that the matter was a number one priority. As we have not heard anything further since I would be anxious to hear what action is being taken on the matter. We are all aware of the incidents in which thousands of fish have been killed, of where there has been concern on the part of community groups about the problem of the dumping of toxic waste but there is no national operation in force in this regard.

The Department of the Environment is renamed from the old Department of Local Government, but one fears that not enough attention is paid to the environmental aspect of the work of the Department. In his reply I should like the Minister to outline his proposals in the sphere of a general environmental policy. He will be aware that, as Minister, I had an environmental policy proposal passed by the then Government in April or May last. It was on the lines of the Environmental Council report and I would like to hear the Minister's plans for the future of it.

With regard to the fire services we had a debate yesterday for three-and-a-half hours on the Committee Stage of the Fire Services Bill. We made considerable progress although it was not as much as I hoped for. I found we were receiving scant co-operation from the Minister on basic aspects such as staffing and the additional staffing which will be required for the improvement of the fire services in line with the proposal set down in that Bill. In giving a specific example I would like to refer to Tallaght, one of the three new towns envisaged in the development plan of Dublin County Council from the early seventies. A new fire service and staff are being provided there. The staff will not be additional to the overall staff complement of the local authority. The staff there come out of the existing complement and this means that to employ a fireman, a roadman, a part development man, a lighting maintenance man or some person doing another job has to take on the duties of a fireman. This is the reality of the situation as told to us by the Minister yesterday. The regulations sent out last July concerning recruitment within the public and semi-State sector is causing havoc within the local government service. What I say about the fire services can be said about other services in the local authorities. What does the Minister intend to do about the removal of the control?

The Minister referred to the Stardust Inquiry. It has become a cant to say that this inquiry is costing too much and no further inquiry should be proceeded with. No matter what it costs, in the national interest it is vitally important that that inquiry be held. I look forward to hearing not alone the report of that inquiry but the recommendations on future needs in regard to fire fighting and fire prevention in places like the Stardust. The cost is very little when one compares it with the gains which can be got from that inquiry. We had a debate on the fire services at great length yesterday but it would be wrong of me not to mention this in the context of a debate on this Supplementary Estimate. When the Government parties were in opposition one particular supporter of the Government who is now an Independent Deputy in this House called for a public inquiry into the Bundoran fire tragedy. I am taking this opportunity to again call on the Government to honour their commitment to a public sworn inquiry into the Bundoran fire tragedy. There is great concern about that tragedy. I ask the Minister of State to comment on this.

I had the honour of being the Minister in charge of the Department of the Environment for eight months and I would like to put on the record my appreciation of the great work of the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary and all the staff in the Department of the Environment. During the period I was in the Custom House I had the fullest co-operation of all of the staff as well as their total loyalty in the task I was trying to carry out. We should be very proud of our civil service. They carry out their work in a very unselfish way without any concern for the demands on their time no matter what hour of the day or night. It has become fashionable recently for the present administration to talk about the over-manned civil service and the wastage within the public service as if the public service did not produce anything on behalf of the people. I can say, on behalf of the public service, that during the three years I was Minister of State in the Department of Industry and Commerce I had considerable contact with the private sector in industry both at management and factory floor levels. I believe that the future of industry would not be in doubt if many of the management and workforce I saw in the private sector worked as hard and unselfishly as those involved in the public sector. We are on a slippery slope if this attitude in relation to the public service continues. I want to register my appreciation and gratitude for the loyalty and unselfish dedication to their duty of the staff of the Department of the Environment during the time I had the pleasure of being Minister there.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Kenneally)

Deputy Mervyn Taylor.

Mr. Sherlock

May I speak for five minutes? I have been here since 1 o'clock. Will I get that opportunity?

Acting Chairman

I called Deputy Taylor because he indicated to me more than 20 minutes ago that he wished to speak.

Mr. Sherlock

I was here before you took over the Chair.

Acting Chairman

I do not intend to argue with the Deputy. I have called Deputy Taylor.

Mr. Sherlock

I want to know will I get an opportunity to speak on this issue?

Acting Chairman

The Chair will allow anybody to speak. I am not inhibiting anybody. I called Deputy Taylor. I ask him to speak.

With due respect, if the Chair tells me I will be allowed to speak for a few minutes I will do that.

Acting Chairman

I cannot give any guarantee to anybody about how long they may speak. I must abide by Standing Orders.

Mr. Creed

On a point of order, it is not necessary to have all this hassle. After Deputy Taylor speaks, will the Chair give permission to Deputy Sherlock to speak for the five minutes he is seeking?

With reference to the remarks of Deputy Raphael Burke, it ill behoves any Fianna Fáil Deputy to come here and heap criticism on subsidies that have had to be cut back or withdrawn or public expenditure that, of necessity, has had to be pegged or reduced when one looks at the record of Fianna Fáil, their policy on taxation and the way they came to power in 1977. What did they do? They abolished rates, a matter on which the Deputy keeps harping. They abolished car tax and wealth tax. They decimated capital gains tax. They set about providing for those by massive borrowings abroad thereby sending the economy rapidly downhill which requires a major gigantic effort on the part of the Government to arrest let alone reverse. Yet a Fianna Fáil Deputy criticises our attempt to put the finances in some kind of order. He heaped jibes and comments, not only in this debate but in other debates since last July, on the Labour Party. The Labour Party did not indulge in or attempt to buy votes at the polls by offering gifts and promises to the electorate as a means of obtaining power, which was the means adopted by Fianna Fáil in 1977. The burden of those debts abroad, not all for productive purposes, are still with us today and affect necessary items of public expenditure in local government and so on. It was not my intention to dwell on this but I felt compelled to do it having regard to the tenure of many of the remarks made.

As regards the cost of building land, Deputy Burke spoke about the prime factor in this being the provision of water and sewerage facilities. The major factor by far is the speculative dealings that go on in the development and rezoning of land. We have experience of this in Dublin County Council. When one looks at the record there to see by what means rezonings took place, one finds it was on the votes and support of councillors belonging to Deputy Burke's party. The Fianna Fáil Party are nothing if not consistent and presumably that pattern will be repeated in other local authorities. It is those practices which are producing the windfall profits referred to by Deputy Burke and it would better behove that party to ensure those profits do not arise by voting against rezonings on the advice of planning officials of county councils and local authorities. Those are matters that increase the price of houses and price many young people out of a home.

Reference was made to the Stardust tragedy. I see in the estimate that the Department's vote on the cost of that tribunal for the current year is £650,000 and that excludes legal fees which will be met from another source and no doubt will be that much again. After an appalling tragedy such as occurred in the Stardust, some form of inquiry would be required but one must call into question expenditure of massive amounts of money on an inquiry of that nature. One cannot help but wonder if that money would have been better spent in compensation for the families of the unfortunate victims and also for people who were injured.

As regards An Bord Pleanála there is an additional sum of £26,000, bringing the expenditure up to £328,500. As we know this board was set up by legislation in 1975. The operating of the board as an appeals procedure has been a disappointment. The time has come to have a look at a more acceptable and adequate appeals procedure for hearing planning appeals. There are inordinate delays in many appeals. Many are held up for three, six or nine months, and a year or more is not uncommon. It is an injustice to people that decisions on matters which vitally affect them should be held up for long periods of time. As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. Many people are held up waiting for appeals for houses and so on. I ask that this situation be overhauled to ensure that decisions are given within a reasonable time.

Many decisions given by the board from an environmental point of view leave a lot to be desired. They have given decisions which have caused grave concern to the residents in the areas involved. I refer to a decision which they gave for a toxic waste disposal plant in the Dublin mountains in the vicinity of the Dublin water supply feeding the streams that run into the reservoir providing the water for Dublin city and county. We are faced with a situation, based on a decision they gave, where there is no more than a few millimetres of plastic between the safety of that water supply and disaster because the planning permission provides that toxic waste may be dumped in reservoirs protected by sheets of plastic, on the suggestion that this would be adequate to hold poisons and wastes that eminate therefrom and would not reach nearby streams feeding the Dublin water supply. We are trusting the safety of the water supply on a few millimetres of plastic. That was an incredible decision for An Bord Pleanála to reach. I cannot but comment adversely on it.

I do not know if there are any steps the Minister can take but he should look at the situation because it is causing worry and concern to the people in Tallaght who live nearby. If anything went wrong it would effect the whole of Dublin. The best made plans can go wrong. We saw the situation in Bantry and other locations. Expensive equipment can develop defects and things do not go according to plan. The risk may be small but in this kind of issue any risk is too great. Where the health and safety of all of us are concerned it seems remarkable that the board would reach such a decision. Not too far away from that they gave another permission which caused serious concern to the residents in the Tallaght area and that was for a lead plant.

There is provision of £3 million for certain malicious injury claims. The time has come to look at the entire concept of this code. It is time the burden of malicious injury payments which the State has accepted for many years was lifted. It is time that that liability of the State was ended. It was introduced as a penal measure many years ago during the British administration of this country and there is no logical reason why that system should continue in operation any longer. Virtually the entire damages which come under that category are covered by insurance policies and these payments by the State are little more than an operation in ease of the insurance companies. The insurance companies should carry the can themselves. After all, they quite happily take the premiums on those policies in which they indemnify their policy-holders against that damage. Therefore, it would be more appropriate for those companies to pick up the tab and pay it rather than have the State pick up that burden and carry that liability. The State has enough burdens to carry without having to bail out the insurance companies.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The Minister is introducing this Supplementary Estimate for a Department which probably has more expenditure than most other Departments. However, despite the very difficult economic situation the Government inherited, the Minister for the Environment has found it possible since coming into office to provide an additional £30 million for housing grants, the lion's share of which went to the Dublin region, which is very badly in need of it. I compliment the Minister on the manner in which he has shown such urgency regarding the problem which all of us, particularly in the Dublin region, know is enormous — probably the biggest single problem we come across in our advice clinics.

The re-introduction of the home improvement grants is very welcome. It is a pity they were abolished even for such a short time. That was a very short-sighted decision. The housing stock in Dublin City is in need of grant aid — this is an old city — and the encouragement the Minister has given will ensure that the housing stock will last for a considerable period longer than it otherwise would have endured. This applies not just to development of the housing stock of the city but also to the environment generally.

Whenever expenditure or funding is mentioned in connection with the Department of the Environment the Opposition tend to speculate that the Government are going to re-introduce some form of rates, and that is a great throwaway phrase for the electorate to pick up. However, two Cabinet Ministers — the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Environment — have stated that there will not be a re-introduction of rates. All the same, that is not the same as saying that the local authorities do not need additional funding. They could do with additional funding and they could raise additional funding without the re-introduction of rates or any additional cost whatever to the domestic sector. In the non-domestic sector, the business area, there is a good, a just opportunity, for local authorities to charge realistic fees to the business sector, something they have not been doing heretofore. For instance, planning consultants in Dublin, many of whom are involved in very large multi-million pound developments, use the planning departments of local authorities, corporations and county councils to get expert advice and an indication of what the problems will be in a development. They get it all free. They, in turn, charge their clients very handsome fees for this information. Dublin Corporation, for instance, would be quite justified, particularly in the stringent economic situation we are in, in charging for that sort of consultancy and in asking this section of the business sector, who more than others have been doing very well in recent times, to contribute to the local authorities who have been providing these facilities.

I believe and hope that the time will come when local authorities will be given greater autonomy. There are many issues which local authorities could very well deal with without having to refer to Government Departments. Take, for instance, one simple issue. At a recent meeting of Dublin Corporation a grant of £5,000 was approved for Women's Aid out of corporation funds, the corporation having satisfied themselves that this was a very worthwhile project. When the payment of this £5,000 went to the Department of the Environment somebody there decided to hold it up. Somebody there was not satisfied, despite the fact that local representatives were satisfied. That sort of dual bureacracy is unnecessary. The decisions on purely local matters should remain with the local authorities, particularly large authorities such as Dublin Corporation who probably are spending somewhere in the region of £300 million plus on capital revenue in the year. In the Dublin city region alone the corporation expenditure would probably be about £200 million. When that sort of financing is involved and considering the cost of interest and insurance paid by the corporation, the Minister should consider giving authorities the power to go into what I would term city business. They should be given the power to participate in the insurance and banking sector if they wish to do so and to develop into the building society sector. They are already acting in part as building societies but are confined to the lower end of the market. Given the sort of funds being spent in Dublin and the sort of funds available to the local authorities in Dublin, those local authorities should be encouraged to compete in many sound profit-making areas in order to fund the very costly services they are providing for the community.

I come to another point which I mention, not for the sake of alarm or sensation but because I feel something needs to be done about it. It is the question of the audit of the accounts of local authorities. In the case of Dublin, where I have explained the extent of the expenditure, it is and has been common that three years have passed before the set of audited accounts is presented to the Minister and then referred by him back to the local authorities. If that was to be repeated in Dublin county we could have something in the region of £1,000 million in today's terms of Government funds not reported on for the best part of three years. When they are reported on it is done in a very limited way. I question whether the report will come up to the standard of the full independent audit which any reasonably sized company, private or public, would be expected to provide for their shareholders. We should consider, even on a trial basis, the possibility of encouraging private audit companies to audit the accounts of local authorities.

The local authorities pay a fee to the Department of the Environment for an audit. I do not believe the audit is approached in the same way as an audit of a public company. It is undesirable to have a Department of the Environment auditor working almost full-time in Dublin Corporation because he can get close to the people working there and could easily accept the explanations given to him.

Dublin Corporation have set up a committee of public accounts because of allegations about certain developments. Certain councillors have raised the question of alleged financial difficulties and these are being examined. If these allegations are proved, we have to ask ourselves how worthwhile are the local authority audits. Substantial amounts of money are being spent here and I feel very strongly about this. Local councillors should be encouraged to satisfy themselves that the money spent has been properly audited. On an experimental basis we could allow independent auditors to examine local authority accounts. This already happens in the United Kingdom.

Councillors should be provided with postal services because the present system is unjust. The authorities are only waiting for the nod from the Minister to extend reasonable facilities to councillors. Many councillors work very hard but do not get any recognition. They should be provided with facilities to monitor the work of the local authorities and the Minister should give attention to this problem.

The Minister accepts that there is a need for local government reform in the Dublin region. The situation is crazy. We have Dublin Corporation in the centre, in the east the Dún Laoghaire authority and then there is Dublin County Council. To complicate matters Dublin Corporation are building houses in county council areas and there is one county and city manager, with some officials common to all authorities. This is an absurd situation and the sooner real reform is introduced the better. Any such reform would have to refer to the power of the manager vis-á-vis the power of elected representatives. In the interest of local democracy the powers of the manager should be transferred to the elected representative.

Deputy Burke referred to rates. The Coalition Government of the day had removed the health charge from the rates. They started to abolish domestic rates by degrees. Nobody who looks at the facts will accept that the removal of rates can be credited only to the Fianna Fáil Administration.

Deputy Burke referred to the permission he granted for road building and expansion but the reality is different. Everybody knows that we cannot get potholes filled, let alone a road built. Local authorities have been starved of funds and they were not allowed to raise the funds — not, I suggest, by an extra charge on the domestic sector but by a charge on the non-domestic sector. There are many big companies using the facilities of this city — road, water and so on — who are not contributing proportionately. If Deputy Burke had been more innovative in this area we would not have so many potholes.

I compliment the library services in this city because they have been providing a very good, loyal and worthwhile service throughout the years. I am particularly pleased they have extended their services into the area of art lending, tape and record lending and so on. Those facilities should be extended throughout the country because they have proved to be very worthwhile services in the Dublin area.

There is an enormous traffic problem in this city and the local authorities are trying to overcome it. Given the increase in the number of vehicles used — many families have two and three cars — no matter what sorts of roads we built we will always have traffic problems unless people are encouraged not to bring their cars into the city or we ban cars from the city altogether. If we take either of those steps we must be able to provide a very good public transport service which must include an underground service. I am not talking about something that could be provided overnight, but in the long-term, there are plans for an underground connection between the main railway stations. The Minister should ask the local authorities to give this priority and he should encourage them, through the new transport authority, to make innovations.

Will it be possible during the Christmas period to ban unnecessary car traffic in the city centre in order to encourage greater use of public services and provide people with easy entry to and exit from the city? This would have a spin-off effect in that it would encourage more business in the centre of the city, which has been dying off, and it would also encourage people to go to the centre of the city and save it from decay. That could be done without any great additional expenditure. It should be tried during the Christmas period because we are all aware that it is impossible to move in a car in the centre of the city at that time.

I should like to congratulate the Minister of State on his recent appointment and I look forward to working closely with him. I congratulate him on the early introduction of this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. McMahon

The Department of the Environment covers a very important area and I am glad to have this opportunity to contribute to the debate on a Supplementary Estimate for it. I should like to point out that four speakers from this side of the House have contributed so far without anyone offering from the Opposition side.

Mr. Smith

On a point of order, I should like to state that there was an understanding between the Whips that another Estimate would be introduced at 4.15 p.m. Accordingly, Deputies from this side were so notified and that is the reason they are not available to contribute to this debate. In fact, I am waiting for that other Estimate to be introduced.

Mr. McMahon

I was not referring to the Deputy and I fully appreciate his position, but he is but one of a possible 78 Fianna Fáil Members who could contribute to this debate. It is an indication of how they feel about the Department of the Environment.

Many people are inclined to put the blame for the cutback in the services of local authorities in recent years on the shoulders of Deputy Burke, the former Minister for the Environment, but I do not think he was responsible. In my view, Deputy Burke would have made a good Minister but he was not long enough in the post to prove his worth. I worked with him for many years on a local authority and he was very dedicated. He was deeply concerned while he was Minister for the Environment. I was pleased when he was appointed. I do not say that he ran away from his responsibilities but his party did in that the former Taoiseach did not keep his head and called an election, which was not in fact due until next year.

Mr. Smith

There may be another election before next year.

Mr. McMahon

There may be, but I do not think the Deputy's party would welcome it. I should like to congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment and I wish him well. He served his time in a local authority and is aware of the problems that confront those bodies. Were it not for local authorities I do not think there would be any need for a Department of the Environment. I have no doubt that the new Minister, Deputy Creed, will have every sympathy for the problems of local authorities. They will get a sympathetic hearing from him as they will get from the Minister, Deputy Barry. One of the first decisions taken by the Government last June was to rescue the housing situation by allocating an additional £30 million to that area. However, even that allocation is not sufficient and local authorities will still be short of money. That amounted to a considerable amount of money to come out of an empty purse and many of those on local authority housing lists are deeply grateful to the Government for making that allocation.

I should like to refer to a report in one of this morning's newspapers under the heading, "Housing horror for unmarried mothers". I made an effort to contact the society mentioned, St. Anne's Adoption Society, Cork, about it, but I was unsuccessful. I am sure there was no harm meant in the report but it seemed to indicate that the problem referred to was a national one. I hope it was meant to convey that the problem was confined to the Cork area. The report stated that a total of 210 pregnant girls, 26 under the age of 17 years, sought help from St. Anne's Adoption Society last year, an increase of more than 30 per cent on the previous year. The report went on to state that unmarried mothers were never a priority on the public housing list and that in the present financial crisis they would get a very poor hearing from the housing authority. I should like to refute that statement as far as the Dublin local authority is concerned. We have given unmarried mothers and deserted wives priority on our housing lists. I do not have the exact figures but I am aware that about 18 months ago in one area of Dublin county out of 19 two-bedroom units 13 of those went to unmarried mothers. Shortly afterward there was another allocation of eight two-bedroom units, all of which went to unmarried mothers, deserted wives or single parent families. That is the category in which we have place unmarried mothers in our housing priority lists in the county; they are coupled with the deserted wife with one child and the single parent family. It is only right that the record be kept straight. Very many people will have taken that to be a national report rather than a Cork one. I hope it will be corrected because it is unfair to members of Dublin County Council. Indeed that is not the only area in which we have been first. I am sure other local authorities have followed our example.

I have just been given more detailed figures than those I have already given the House. For the 12 months up to November there were housed by Dublin County Council 22 deserted wives, 11 separated wives and 24 unmarried mothers, giving a total of 37 in that category. That is a fair achievement. If these figures were published it would give a different impression from that given by this report. I accept the report. Unfortunately I have not had an opportunity of checking with the society. However it was a great pity that it should have been publicised in the newspapers and on radio this morning and would go across to the general public as being a national position when it is far from being that.

There is a grave situation obtaining in local authorities throughout the country simply because — as the Minister said in his remarks this morning — the Estimates sought for this year were not met by the previous Government. I believe this was a deliberate act on the part of the former Government, very likely on instructions from the then Taoiseach, because he knew then there would be an election and to meet the full Estimates would have meant that the Minister for Finance would have had to impose even heavier taxes in the January budget. Of course that would have left them in an unfavourable position politically in an election year. This is probably the reason also that we have had so few contributions from the other side of the House this afternoon. Many local authorities now have their workers on a three-day week. We in Dublin County Council, in co-operation with the manager, have made desperate efforts to ensure that there will be no lay-offs or unemployment in the Dublin county area. Indeed I congratulate the manager on his efforts in this regard to date because, despite a shortage of cash, he has been able to maintain the workforce in the county. I would ask the Minister to examine the workforce situation in all local authorities. I do not know what is the position in his own area. I know of several local authorities who now have staff, particularly road staff, on a three-day week. But what happens then? They draw social welfare for the remainder, so it is the State which is paying anyway. Perhaps the Minister would examine this situation and if necessary have funds transferred from the Department of Social Welfare to ensure that men are kept at work in local authorities. Goodness knows everybody inside and outside this House knows that local authorities are now operating at great disadvantage and if their work is discontinued then we shall all be the sufferers.

Deputy G. Mitchell referred to the potholes in our roads. He contended that they were there simply because there was an insufficient allocation of funds.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Creed)

I misunderstood the procedure here, and I was hoping that I would have had sufficient time to reply to all the points made in the course of this wide-ranging debate. I accept that I misunderstood the agreement between the Whips. The debate here over the past three or four hours has been a most important one and I was anxious to reply to all the points made.

I thank the Deputies who contributed and hope that at some later stage I will be afforded an opportunity of dealing with the points raised on this Supplementary Estimate. I thank the Deputies also who congratulated me on my appointment. It is a sensitive area and there is a considerable amount of work to be done. A number of points were made by Deputies to which I shall not now have an opportunity of replying, because I understand there is another Estimate to be moved before 5 o'clock.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is the order that it will be moved at 5 o'clock.

Mr. Creed

In my opening remarks I said that a considerable proportion of this Estimate was foreseen in the January 1981 budget. Accusations were made by Deputies Raphael Burke and Moore about the Government's handling of the problem. I would remind those Deputies that the Government have been in office for just four months. It would be impossible to resolve the problem overnight or in the time already at the disposal of the present Government.

I regard housing as a most important area and hope that as many resources as possible will be diverted towards improving the difficult housing situation obtaining throughout the country. There is no way anybody can wave a magic wand to provide the necessary finance for the solution of this problem. We have had a housing problem for many years and — I want to be honest in this respect — when we go to the country in about four years time I hope I will be in a position to say that a considerable amount of work has been done in this area but the problem will not have been resolved altogether. But for the supplementary budget introduced here allocating millions of pounds to local authorities their work would have come to a standstill through lack of capital investment which should have been provided for them in the January 1981 budget. The supplementary budget of approximately £15 million, again devoted to resolving the housing situation, is a clear indication of where this Government stand in relation to this problem at present. Deputy Moore contended that he could not understand why the Government would not and could not make all the necessary money available to resolve this problem. One would think, hearing some of the points made by Deputies Raphael Burke and Moore, that it was their first term in this House and not that Deputy Burke has been a Minister of State and then Minister for the Environment latterly. This situation was inherited by the present Government, and every effort is being made to resolve it.

I accept that a considerable amount of work remains to be done in the housing area. My priority, particularly in relation to parents of young children living in appalling situations, mobile homes and so on, would be to endeavour to make finance available, because that is the area of responsibility with which I am now charged. I shall try to make sufficient finance available to at least effect an improvement in this situation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister in his Ministerial maiden, but the order is that debate would conclude at 5 o'clock. Is the motion agreed?

Vote put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I might avail of this opportunity of conveying the congratulations of the Chair to the new Minister.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 19 Nov 1981