asked the Minister for the Environment whether he will consider increasing the local improvements fund moneys to local authorities and earmarking a proportion of these funds for minor local drainage schemes, as such schemes are now being neglected because of a shortage of money.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Local Improvement Schemes.
20.
The provision for the Local Improvements Scheme for 1983, including the question of what funds may be available for particular elements such as minor local drainage schemes, is being considered in the context of the determination of the Estimates generally for this year.
Would the Minister examine this situation in which because of the shortage of money being provided for some years past under this heading the pressure to have roads repaired is such that nothing is being left for the less urgent or apparently less urgent jobs of minor drainage? Would the Minister consider even within the moneys that are available that some percentage should be set aside out of the total so that some drainage work might be done? Otherwise, the pressure for road repairs is so enormous that drainage would continue to be neglected.
Yes, I shall certainly consider it. I think the Deputy is aware in his capacity as a Member of the European Parliament of the reason why the present situation has arisen, but I will certainly look constructively at his proposal.
Is the Minister aware of how important the Local Improvements Scheme is to rural dwellers particularly along the west coast and down into the southern counties? If he is so aware, will he ensure that the allocation in the Estimates for 1983 will show a substantial increase on the amount provided in recent years? In my view — and I should like the Minister to be aware of it—there seems to be in his Department a lack of appreciation on the part of the officials of the importance of the Local Improvement Scheme. Is he aware that in previous years serious attempts have been made to reduce the amount of money available under that scheme to local authorities?
I am so aware and I am hopeful that the situation will be improving this year.
On a point of technical clarification, would the Minister say, arising out of his reply in which he made some reference to the Estimates for the coming year, what the position is at least as far as his Department is concerned in regard to these Estimates? He is aware that the outgoing Government published the Book of Estimates and the public capital programme. Could he indicate what the position of his Department will be in regard to the Estimate? Is it accepted as published by the previous administration or what is the status of the Estimate at present?
I think the Leader of the Opposition would have to agree that we are getting very far away from the question.
On the contrary, I want to make it quite clear that in his reply the Minister of State did refer to the Estimate for his Department for 1983.
You cannot chase every hare.
No, but I want to ask the Minister, who has referred to the Estimate for his Department for 1983. Therefore, I feel entitled to ask him what is the position in regard to that Estimate in 1983.
As far as I am aware, no final decision has yet been taken in relation to the Estimate.
21.
asked the Minister for the Environment if he will remove the 10 per cent minimum local contribution for local improvement schemes which was introduced in 1982 in view of the serious hardship it is causing to many householders in the western counties who cannot now afford to have their local roads repaired; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Following the adaptation of the Local Improvements Scheme to take account of EEC aid available under the western package for farm roads it was necessary last year to advise the county councils concerned that:
(a) a specified minimum amount of their allocation should be devoted to farm road projects;
(b) that a minimum local contribution of 10 per cent, which is a necessary condition for EEC aid, would apply to farm road projects.
In the case of that portion of their allocations not devoted to western package projects, it is open to county councils to apply the general principles of the scheme, which in appropriate circumstances may include a lower rate of or no local contribution, to other local improvement schemes.
The provision for the Local Improvements Scheme for 1983, including the question of what funds may be available for particular elements which do not qualify under the western package, is being considered in the context of the determination of the Estimates generally for this year.
Is the Minister aware that in practice the 10 per cent requirement is mandatory now? The second part of his answer did not apply last year and because of that may I ask does he now subscribe to the principle that if you are poor and cannot afford to pay the 10 per cent you will not get your roads repaired? If he does not he will have to remove the 10 per cent requirement which has been a major disaster for hundreds of householders along the west coast.
I do not subscribe to the principle that if you do not have the money you should not get any benefit, but I would point out to the Deputy that in the areas to which I was referring the 10 per cent is not part of the legal requirement. If it has become the practice at local authority level, then it is up to the local authority members, who have the power to ensure that the poor are not discriminated against in the way he has mentioned.
The Minister is not on top of his brief on this particular issue. I have gone into this in great detail——
We cannot have a statement on it.
The Minister is not giving the House accurate information. Each local authority is required by the Department to charge 10 per cent on the moneys available under the local improvement scheme and because of this poor people in my constituency have not been able to avail of the scheme to have the roads repaired. I am asking this socialist Minister for the Environment to remove this 10 per cent requirement——
The Deputy is very much out of order now.
Would the Minister agree that it was a serious mistake ever to introduce it or agree to it? I appeal to the Minister to indicate now that he will very seriously consider examining all of this matter and that he will remove the 10 per cent requirement if he agrees with what I am saying that poor people have been denied and are being denied the benefit of the scheme.
We cannot have a speech on it now.
It is a very important matter——
It probably is but we must move on. Question No. 22.
Could I have a reply to the question which I put to the Minister? I do not want to bring him back on the Adjournment.
If the Minister wishes to answer.
The 10 per cent, as the Deputy realises, is as I understand it a requirement of the western package as an EEC condition in return for which we get EEC money.
But we could change that requirement.
I shall certainly look into it.
22.
asked the Minister for the Environment the amount allocated to each county for local improvement scheme funds over the last three years.
As the reply is in the form of a tabular statement, I propose to have it circulated with the Official Report.
Following is the statement:
Allocations notified to County Councils under the Local Improvements Scheme.
|
County |
1980 |
1981 |
1982 |
|
£ |
£ |
£ |
|
|
Carlow |
14,000 |
21,000 |
13,000 |
|
Cavan |
196,000 |
260,000 |
317,000 |
|
Clare |
73,000 |
97,000 |
118,000 |
|
Cork |
144,000 |
192,000 |
234,000 |
|
Donegal |
235,000 |
313,000 |
382,000 |
|
Dublin |
3,000 |
25,000 |
12,000 |
|
Galway |
171,000 |
228,000 |
278,000 |
|
Kerry |
230,000 |
304,000 |
371,000 |
|
Kildare |
11,000 |
20,000 |
12,000 |
|
Kilkenny |
10,000 |
14,000 |
12,000 |
|
Laois |
27,000 |
36,000 |
22,000 |
|
Leitrim |
207,000 |
276,000 |
337,000 |
|
Limerick |
24,000 |
30,000 |
40,000 |
|
Longford |
51,000 |
60,000 |
73,000 |
|
Louth |
25,000 |
33,000 |
20,000 |
|
Mayo |
242,000 |
320,000 |
390,000 |
|
Meath |
8,000 |
14,000 |
12,000 |
|
Monaghan |
75,000 |
100,000 |
122,000 |
|
Offaly |
41,000 |
55,000 |
33,000 |
|
Roscommon |
65,000 |
87,000 |
106,000 |
|
Sligo |
67,000 |
89,000 |
109,000 |
|
Tipperary N.R. |
5,500 |
14,000 |
12,000 |
|
Tipperary S.R. |
5,500 |
27,000 |
12,000 |
|
Waterford |
19,000 |
25,000 |
15,000 |
|
Westmeath |
7,000 |
14,000 |
12,000 |
|
Wexford |
29,000 |
39,000 |
23,000 |
|
Wicklow |
15,000 |
21,000 |
13,000 |
|
Total |
2,000,000 |
2,714,000 |
3,100,000 |
Could we have the total?
The total for 1982 is £3.1 million.
What criteria have been used in apportioning these funds and why is there a discrepancy between different regions?
I am not in a position to give that information at this stage.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.
I wish to have a written reply to Question No. 126 on today's Order Paper.
I wish to have written replies to Questions Nos. 44 and 45 on the Order Paper.
That will be attended to. I have allowed a Private Notice Question submitted by Deputy Desmond O'Malley.