asked the Minister for the Environment if he will give details of the number of group water supply scheme grants paid in the quarter January-March 1984 and in the same quarter of 1983, 1982, 1981 and 1980.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Group Water Supply Schemes.
19.
As the reply is in the form of a tabular statement, I propose to circulate it with the Official Report.
Following is the statement:
|
January-March |
Number of group scheme grants paid for |
|
|
Domestic water supplies |
Potential farm supplies |
|
|
1980 |
2,015 |
1,395 |
|
1981 |
1,828 |
1,363 |
|
1982 |
1,138 |
710 |
|
1983 |
1,745 |
1,012 |
|
1984 |
930 |
539 |
20.
asked the Minister for the Environment if he will confirm that local contributions are being paid to group water supply schemes on the advice of his Department, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
21.
asked the Minister for the Environment if he will confirm whether he has introduced new regulations requiring that 90 per cent of group water supply scheme local contributions be collected and the contractor appointed before his Department will allocate grants; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 20 and 21 together.
Group scheme grants are payable on the basis of a proportion of the cost of providing individual water supplies and it is therefore essential for groups to collect local contributions to meet the balance of the cost. I have not introduced regulations requiring groups to collect 90 per cent of the local contributions for their schemes and to appoint contractors before grants are allocated to enable them to proceed. In cases where there is reason to believe that groups may not be in a position to collect the local contributions necessary to pay for their schemes, my Department pay particular regard to the total amount of contributions raised locally when deciding whether grants should be allocated for them.
Is it not true that the Department are requiring, if not 90 per cent, that a very large proportion of the local contribution be collected before any grants are allocated and that this rule is proving unworkable? Because of this, activity in the group water supply scheme area has been almost brought to a halt, as I am sure the statistics the Minister is circulating in tabular form will show.
This is not the case. The Deputy is suggesting that the group scheme has been brought to a halt but grants were allocated for 34 new schemes in the first quarter of this year and a total of 1,723 grants were allocated for new schemes and existing schemes over the same period. What the Deputy says is not fact.
Tell us the number of grants paid.
Is the Minister aware that, not alone are the Department requesting these contributions, but that they are insisting on them? The result is that many group water schemes are paying substantial bank overdrafts on money they should have received from the Department.
I said no regulations have been introduced or proposed whereby groups would be required to collect 90 per cent of local contributions. That is a statement of fact.
That contradicts the position on the ground.
Would the Minister accept that his officials are introducing new procedures which do not involve regulations and that this has come about in the last three months? Would he also accept that since a recent television programme on group water schemes there has been a great change in the operation of the group water schemes by his Department?
Local inspectors are probably being much more cautious in their approach to group water schemes as a result of that programme and a certain amount of laxity in certain areas. They require that the money be put up front before work proceeds but this is only a cautionary measure which any prudent inspector would require to ensure that at the end of the day the group water scheme will be carried out and funds will be available.
Local inspectors were always cautious.
A final supplementary from Deputy Leonard.
Would the Minister agree that a circular issued by his Department dealing with additional inspections has held up the payment of schemes? Is the Minister satisfied that there is an adequate number of inspectors to carry out these spot inspections?
It was reasonable to increase the number of spot inspections as a result of certain occurrences last year. The requirement of one-in-ten seemed too wide and it was necessary to increase the number of spot inspections.
Is the Minister aware that the volume of work in the group water supply scheme area has dropped dramatically in the last six months? Is that correct?
I told the Deputy what happened this quarter. I think he is aware that because of the programme which has been carried out there is a tapering off in this area and the necessity for water schemes.
How much money, if any, has been paid out in the last six months compared with the same period in the previous year?
I do not have that information.
22.
asked the Minister for the Environment the reason his Department approved of a special contribution for increased pipe sizes on the Charleville-Braganstown group water supply scheme, County Louth; and the reason they have since refused approval for a loan and subsidy.
My Department approved the payment by Louth County Council of a special contribution to the Charleville-Braganstown group water scheme in respect of increased pipe sizes which the council require the group to provide in order to cater for future development in the area. Louth County Council applied to my Department to sanction this special contribution from the local loans fund. As group water scheme special contributions are normally financed by way of treasurer loans, my Department advised the council on 1 February 1984 to seek a treasurer loan to finance the special contribution. The repayment of loan charges on this loan would qualify for State subsidy of 50 per cent.
The submission of a treasurer loan application is awaited in the Department.
23.
asked the Minister for the Environment the reason his Department have refused to give their approval for increased pipe sizes on the Cluid group water supply scheme, County Louth, despite the fact that the work was completed in 1980 at the request of Louth County Council.
My Department have not refused to approve the laying of increased pipe sizes by the Cluid group water scheme. The position is that, following discussions and correspondence with my Department, Louth County Council sought approval in February 1984 to revised proposals for the payment of a special contribution to this group. These proposals are under examination and I expect to make a decision on the matter at an early date.
Is the Minister aware that the work in that case was carried out at the request of Louth County Council in 1980, and up to now the Department have refused to pay the required contribution?
I said this will be looked at, at an early date.
Will the Minister give an assurance that this matter will be settled at an early date? Four years is a long time for a man to wait——
I have only had this since February——
Has some of the money for which Louth County Council applied been paid to the council in respect of another group water scheme in that county?
I am not aware of that.
24.
asked the Minister for the Environment if his Department acted on an anonymous letter to instigate an investigation against an officer (details supplied) of Tipperary North Riding County Council in connection with alleged association with a group water supply scheme contractor (details supplied); and if so, if it has since been established whether there was any truth in the anonymous allegation.
It is the normal practice of my Department to transmit any complaints which may be received concerning officers of local authorities to the manager of the local authority concerned on a confidential basis. It is then a matter for the manager, in the first instance, to consider what action, if any, should be taken. A recent anonymous complaint against an officer of the local authority mentioned by the Deputy was dealt with in this way. The manager subsequently informed my Department that he was satisfied that the allegation implied in the complaint was without foundation. I should add that the name of the person contained in the anonymous complaint differed slightly from that supplied by the Deputy.
In view of the Minister's confirmation of the allegation will he ensure that there will not be further discrimination against the individual contractor who has suffered very seriously? Will the Minister interest himself immediately in the matter.
I certainly will.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.