Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 Apr 1993

Vol. 429 No. 1

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Group Water Schemes.

John Connor

Question:

10 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for the Environment his policy on the hundreds of group water schemes throughout the country that remain stalled for the past two years or more because of lack of funding; his views on this situation; and the steps, if any, he intends to take to resolve the problem.

Individual group water schemes are approved for grant payment on an ongoing basis. The 1993 overall provision for group scheme grants has been increased to £2.5 million from £2 million in 1992.

Problems of financing occur in relation to certain schemes where local contributions represent a small proportion only of the total requirement and further subvention is being sought from the capital provision for public schemes. However, I expect that a large number of schemes currently well advanced in their preparation will be approved in 1993. I have already been quite generous to County Roscommon earlier this week.

I am disappointed that the Minister did not take my Question No. 57 together with this question. Perhaps that might have been too embarrassing for the Minister. In relation to the £2.5 million allocation, I estimate that at least 10,000 households throughout the country are awaiting a clear water supply through the medium of the group water schemes. An allocation of £2.5 million might service 200 houses, or, at the most, 300 houses in the current year. Surely the Minister is not claiming that as progress.

It seems that the Deputy has severe problems in making calculations as the number of houses that could be serviced by an allocation of £2.5 million to group water scheme grants. Perhaps it would be a good idea to refresh the Deputy's memory and give the House an indication of last year's position. Last year 108 group water schemes were able to serve 3,684 houses and 1,408 farms. I intend to better that achievement in the present year.

I could provide the Minister with the example of the Fairymount group water scheme in County Roscommon, for which the estimated cost of supplying about 180 houses with clean water is £2.5 million. The Minister's overall allocation of £2.5 million would not go very far if that scheme were included. The Minister seems to be providing figures for schemes that are easy to service. None of the high-cost water schemes is progressing. What are the Minister's plans for schemes that would cost more than £500 per house?

The Fairymount scheme, to which the Deputy referred, I understand will serve approximately 130 houses. Its cost is not £2.5 million but rather £750,000. The inspector from my Department examined that and found it would be possible to serve 70 per cent of the houses at about one-third of the cost. I understand that Roscommon County Council — though the Deputy may not be aware of it — has already decided that the first phase should be undertaken. That was agreed by Roscommon County Council and I am prepared to go down that road.

When the Minister speaks about £2.5 million being allocated in this year's Estimates, would he not agree and recognise that there has been a carry-over from last year's group water schemes of £1.5 million? Therefore, would the Minister not agree that the new allocation amounts to only £1 million? What is the response of the Minister vis-à-vis the 89 group water schemes awaiting final approval of funding this year? Surely the Minister would agree that that constitutes a disappointment in relation to Leader projects, as such, which were to be expanded in this country and in respect of which considerable emphasis has been placed on infrastructure. Could some accommodation not be arranged in regard to group water schemes vis-à-vis Leader projects in an endeavour to stimulate some extra group water schemes this year?

As the Deputy will be aware, I am under tremendous pressure. For example, at the Progressive Democrats' Conference last weekend there were strong arguments advanced against spending any more money on water or other schemes. I have to take account of all these views.

I had not realised we put the Minister under that much pressure.

There was a time when we thought the Minister was going to join them.

Having said that, if the Deputy considers that a question arises of moneys being allocated this year in respect of last year's schemes, he should not under-estimate my ingenuity in achieving a similar position at the end of this year in order to maximise the number of schemes that can go ahead. The Deputy asked me what do I have to say about 89 schemes. As quickly as possible, I will be saying "go ahead." There is no question but that the resources are available for a considerable number of schemes this year.

In regard to various other EC schemes, Leader and others, we will endeavour to embody a component which would involve certain infrastructural developments essential to their administration. There is a need for better co-ordination of all the schemes in terms of ensuring a match between the service being provided, the industry or craft going ahead and the ability of the basic infrastructural needs in the area to serve that purpose.

Top
Share