Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Mar 2004

Vol. 582 No. 6

Private Members’ Business.

Confidence in the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government: Motion.

I move:

"That Dáil Éireann resolves that it no longer has confidence in the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, in view of the incompetent manner in which he has failed to introduce and implement policies that properly fulfil the functions of his Department, including measures to:

— encourage public support of the electoral process;

— construct and allocate social housing to the 50,000 applicants on local authority waiting lists; --restrict the creation of unnecessary waste, resource the collection, reuse and recycling of waste materials, and the effective and safe disposal of unrecoverable waste, through funding methods that have the widest public acceptance;

— implement a national spatial strategy that properly distributes services, facilities and opportunities throughout the country;

— comply with international obligations that this country limit its increase of greenhouse gas emissions;

— responsibly protect national heritage; and

— enhance the quality of and access to local democracy."

Perhaps the Leas-Cheann Comhairle might give me guidance. It is not yet 7 o'clock, and I expect the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government might be here.

There is an equally good Minister present.

Considering what I will be saying about his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I would not say that about the Minister.

Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis na Teachtaí Cuffe, Eamon Ryan, Boyle, Morgan, Gregory agus McGrath.

The Green Party, An Comhaontas Glas, has witnessed ongoing deterioration of the natural and built environment under the reign of the present Minister, Deputy Cullen. That in itself would be a cause of shame and badge of failure for this Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government. However, the conflict arising from the appointment of the Minister as director of elections for Fianna Fáil effectively makes his position untenable.

To be a Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government requires, at the very least, an interest in the issues for which one has responsibility. To hear the Minister confuse global warming and depletion of the ozone layer, on "Morning Ireland" some time ago was not just embarrassing but rang alarm bells for anyone genuinely concerned about the mounting costs of global warming to the taxpayer and the most vulnerable people, as well as numerous species already paying the price of his ineptitude. Lack of action has resulted in Ireland being worst in the EU league as regards non-compliance with the Kyoto limits on greenhouse gases.

The Minister's lack of interest in climate change is more than matched by his messianic interest in acting beyond his powers. In the case of Carrickmines Castle, the Minister, jointly with the local council, applied for permission to destroy a national monument and then effectively granted the approval to himself to fire ahead. With an environment Minister like this, environmentalists need eyes in the back of their heads, as does the High Court, which overruled ministerial approval for the destruction of the medieval castle. Legal actions initiated by the EU Commission during the Irish Presidency again show that the record of this Minister is particularly poor, not just embarrassing for the Government, but for the whole country.

On 13 January the Commission announced legal action against Ireland for non-compliance with EU laws on water quality. On 29 January the Commission again was driven to take legal action on Ireland's failure to protect biodiversity. Recently, Deputy Cullen was accused of acting in breach of the European Union (Scrutiny) Act 2002. In the end Ireland was found guilty by the European Court of Justice of failing to introduce the EU's 1991 nitrates directive.

Since the Minister was a member of the PDs, when we were told he would break the mould, he has gone on to represent the country by breaking the law on behalf of the people. However, I acknowledge that Deputy Cullen does not enjoy breaking the law; to avoid another faux pas he has sought to remove the cap on political corporate donations. It is hardly coincidental that this same Minister is the politician with the most corporate sponsorship in the country. With €35,000 in donations, this is even more than he is allowed to spend in a general election. Sadly, he has refused to put any cap on the amount allowable for local elections spending.

With such wealthy and generous friends the Minister needs to be reminded about the burden his lack of action to deliver adequate affordable housing creates. He needs to be reminded that his lack of support and antagonistic dialogue with environmental NGOs has worn down morale among many volunteers in organisations such as Birdwatch Ireland, Voice, An Taisce, Irish Peatland Conservation Council, Greenhouse Ireland Action Network and many more. Greenpeace and Earthwatch have had to pack up altogether. There is still no dedicated environmental representative in the partnership process.

This Minister is anathema to a sustainable and healthy environment. While he has talks to downgrade special areas of conservation, SACs, he also speaks about "grasping the nettle" to build a necklace of incinerators around Ireland. Even his colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, called part of this adventure, "a ready-up" between Deputy Cullen and Dublin City Council. If that is so, it is the Government and not just the Green Party, which should vote "no confidence" in this so-called Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Why should this Minister enjoy Government support when he publicly tried to humiliate his own Cabinet colleagues over the ban on smoking in the workplace? We therefore request Government as well as Opposition support for this motion.

As our party's leader said, carbon emissions and Ireland's failure to meet its Kyoto obligations is one of the most serious areas in which Deputy Cullen has failed to deliver on what is required from a Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The climate change problems include some of the biggest issues facing this country and the world. In reality, the only thing that may be said about the Irish position is that it is being ignored by the Minister.

As regards the recently proposed emissions trading regime, while many of the problems involved have originated from the EU, with such a large allocation of credits being given free to industry, uniquely this country has made matters worse, in a number of different ways. No proper public consultation was involved, as is required under EU rules, so that the level of allocation to be given to the traded and non-traded sectors could be decided on. Not surprisingly, under this Minister, the maximum possible allocation has been given to large industry, leaving other sectors such as transport, farming and domestic areas of the economy trying to pick up the pieces to provide some kind of reduction in our carbon dioxide emissions. In reality, what we have is a massive multi-million euro subsidy to companies such as the ESB and Cement Roadstone Holdings.

Certain of the provisions, unique to this country, are incredibly damaging to Ireland's long-term prospects of reducing its carbon emissions. The "use it or lose it" provision, which this Government and this Minister has decided to introduce, will encourage power generation companies to maintain in use the most polluting power stations during the life of this emissions trading system, contrary to the purpose of the emissions trading Bill. The proposal to use negotiated agreements, which the Minister strongly advocates and supports, will do nothing to help a proper reduction of carbon emissions but will do everything to help big business escape the consequences of a possible carbon tax or emissions trading system.

With regard to the emissions trading system, the blind faith the Minister has in forestry sequestration to solve the problem, goes against the scientific advice we have to hand which shows that it is very difficult. Far from being the "magic wand" that will allow Ireland to meet its Kyoto commitments, what we have is the worst Government in Europe as regards breaches of emissions regulations; and it has no proper plan to address the issue. The climate change strategy set out in 2000 has clearly gone adrift. There is no sign that any of the reductions talked about will actually be put in place. The only reductions of any sort introduced in recent years followed the closure of the IFI plant, which was a high-energy user. That appears to be the full extent of the reduction plan to date, to shut down Irish businesses that emit carbon.

What is required to tackle Ireland's Kyoto commitments is constructive thinking from this Government. Responsibility for that comes from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who is clearly failing in his duty. That Ireland completely fails to deliver in its energy policy renewable and other wind energy resources which we have in such great abundance is the responsibility of the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, but also the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, who is not pushing the Government in that direction. On transport policy, the utter failure to do anything other than provide for private car use, is in flagrant breach of what should be done if we were attempting to solve the climate change problems we face.

The Minister's submission to the Department of Finance on the issue of carbon tax states that one of the revenue uses that could be availed of would be to buy the credits on the international market under the joint implementation agreement set out in the Kyoto protocol. This is a case where we would actually use the carbon tax to fund further carbon emissions and is contrary to common sense.

The Deputy knows well that this is nonsense.

It is in the Minister's submission to the Department of Finance, if he would care to look at it. The Minister, in his early days in office famously appeared not to know, on RTE radio, the difference between the problems of the hole in the ozone layer and issues surrounding climate change strategy. I do not know whether he knows the difference now, but I do not think this matters because he does not seem to care.

I wish to talk about the National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020. Our motion said the Minister had failed to implement a national spatial strategy that properly distributed services, facilities and opportunities throughout the country. However, the Government states that a comprehensive range of measures has been put in place at national, regional and local levels to support the continuing implementation of the national spatial strategy. It seems crazy that the Government, in its own motion, says it is handsomely delivering the national spatial strategy when only last December it turned it on its head with a pork barrel hand-out of decentralisation. That pork barrel hand-out of the Minister and his colleague McCreevy failed to reflect the national spatial strategy.

A Minister must be referred to by his or her title. It is the Minister, Deputy McCreevy.

The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy and his colleagues turned the national spatial strategy on its head. Very few of the nine gateways and 11 hubs were selected for locating Government jobs through decentralisation. The latter programme failed miserably to reflect the issues headlined in the national spatial strategy. The Minister says he is implementing it, but when I put specific questions to each Ministry, the strategy appears to be completely ignored. I asked the Minister for Defence to outline the changes being made in his Department's plans, programmes, policies and spending, to which he replied that the publication of the Government's national spatial strategy had no implications for them. The Minster should use some joined-up thinking.

The Departments are already in line with the spatial strategy.

Each Department is going its merry way, and the national spatial strategy is simply a piece of window dressing to give the impression of joined-up Government thinking, which could not be further from the truth.

The Defence Forces were decentralised long ago. The Deputy does not know what he is talking about.

We either have a national spatial strategy or we do not, and a laissez-faire approach to planning or not. If we are to seriously consider the implications of the Kyoto Protocol and the need to put people, premises and communities closer so that people can live, work and relax, we would implement the national spatial strategy instead of having a Government that gives only ad hoc responses. I have no confidence that the Minister will deliver on the national spatial strategy because I doubt that he even understands its implications and what it can deliver. He allowed his colleague, the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to completely reverse its contents.

When one examines in detail the Dáil replies from the various Ministers as to whether they are implementing the strategy, half of them are kicking to touch. There has been no concerted effort to deliver on the strategy. The people will suffer. The towns, communities and villages will fail to achieve the critical mass outlined as part of the strategy, which said clearly that investment in the gateways and hubs is essential if we are to achieve the critical mass which would allow urban areas to compete at European level. That has been miserably diluted by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. The national spatial strategy will not be delivered on because it has been so diluted that it no longer stands up.

It is not good enough for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to pay scant regard to planning when implementing policies, nor for a Government to pay little regard to the people in their views on voting when the Minister introduces e-voting. The Minister ignores the Kyoto Protocol, while Ireland is the worst country in Europe regarding its implementation. He then boldly says that we are doing great things and will achieve these ambitious targets, when nothing could be further from the truth. That is not good enough. We have a Minister consumed by the needs of business, who pays little regard to the needs and issues of ordinary people, who is introducing policies which are the polar opposite of what the plain people of Ireland wish to see, and who pays scant regard to the programmes of his Ministry which were put in place a long time ago. I support the motion of no confidence in the Minister. We could do better. To put the environment, heritage and planning on the agenda, we need to have a change of Minister and of Government.

It is in the housing area, one of the many areas under this Minister's stewardship, that he deserves most criticism. In his reply, the Minister will probably talk of the 70,000 houses built in the State last year. He must be aware that many of these represent a mismatch of the housing needs of many. There are 50,000 people on local authority housing lists. In its programme for Government, the Government promised 10,000 social housing units, none of which has yet been built. No planning permissions have been lodged for them and no architects have been appointed. In terms of building, the Government supports the private sector, allowing it build what it wants for maximum profit. I expect nothing less of a Minister who received the largest sum in political donations in the last general election, receiving more than he was required to spend in his constituency.

When these double standards apply, the Opposition has the right to ask questions. Many of the 50,000 people on local authority housing lists have no hope of being housed, given the current rate of construction in local authority areas. We all know from our constituency experiences of people awaiting housing for over ten years. The Minister, his Department and the Government have not addressed the changes which involve more single people seeking housing and families of different structures. Those in the private sector get the best support. The billions granted in foregone tax reliefs, which could be better spent through the Department in building houses, represent a scandal which should not continue one day longer and which the Minister helps to perpetuate by remaining in office. The private rented sector involves 150,000 units, only 16 of which are registered under legislation which the Minister is responsible for seeing enforced. No questions are asked. The people benefiting are those who support the Government financially as well as politically.

The Simon Community says that €6 million is needed to house the homeless. In my constituency, the Cork Simon Community has been short-changed by the Minister in the most recent year, with a promised allocation of €2 million reduced to €800,000. If this represents the Minister's sincere attempt to deal with homelessness, even he must be aware that the problem will worsen. The Minister's telling silence on the recent social welfare and supplementary rent allowance changes at the end of last year indicates his real concern for housing needs. The only progression, so to speak, the Minister has offered to the housing debate was to forego on the Government promise regarding the 20% of social housing. Almost the first item of environmental legislation he introduced in the House changed section 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, again for the benefit of his and his party's development friends.

The Minister has negatively changed legislation in every respect, not only in planning and development but also in foregoing powers in the Waste Management Act and in rowing back the move to allow greater public accountability in the matter of electing mayors in city and county councils.

It is in the Green Party's political interests that the Minister, Deputy Cullen, remain in office. The longer he is there, and the worse job he does, the better it is for us politically. However, we fear for the damage he is doing to the built and natural environment. We move this vote of no confidence because it is in the country's interests that someone else attempt to put in place policies which make more sense environmentally, ecologically, democratically and for the benefit of our society.

Sinn Féin supports this motion of no confidence in the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen. I thank the Green Party for the opportunity to address this Minister's record.

The Minister is a deeply right wing free-marketeer with an anti-working class, individualistic and pro-privatisation agenda. His ideological position means that he can never be a competent Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Hear, hear.

He shares that ideological territory with a number of Cabinet colleagues.

Deputy Peter Power too.

How a person with such an agenda can ever be expected to deliver on social and affordable housing, the implementation of an environment-first waste management policy and empowering people through a reformed and inclusive system of local government is beyond comprehension?

I specifically wish to address the Minister's intentional mishandling of housing, waste management and local government. I cannot recollect the last time I heard the Minister address the housing issue. Housing has been left in the hands of a Minister of State who also has responsibility to another Department. The Government cares more for the rights of private property than it does for the rights of its citizens. Its housing policy appeals to the same constituency served by the property section of The Irish Times, for whom there is no problem of affordable housing, who will never experience the housing crisis or be in need of social housing. A glance through those property pages, or those of any other paper, make the claims by the Minister and his lackeys that there is no affordability problem utterly laughable and indicative of how far out of touch the Government is regarding the hardships and difficulties faced by people.

Of all that the developer-friendly Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has done since taking office, the changes, as Deputy Boyle mentioned, to the Planning and Development Act 2000 were the most inexplicable and inexcusable. That action represented a capitulation to those developers whose greed was offended by the necessity to have 20% social and affordable housing in all developments. It represented a capitulation to those who would ostracise a working class family that moves into a development because they see it as somehow infecting their estate. Sinn Féin rejects this retrogressive attitude because the best housing model is that which involves a social mix.

That is the same agenda that created the vast sprawling ghettos which exiled the working class to cement deserts on the edge of Dublin and other cities, with no facilities, no jobs and no hope. This attitude led to the scourge of drugs in working class areas, particularly in Dublin.

The Deputy should tell his friends to stop peddling those drugs.

That so much progress has been made by residents in those areas through developing their communities is no credit to this or any other Government but a credit to those communities' endurance, will-power and resilience. We, as a society, need to build on what has been done by these communities which have pulled themselves out of the gutter, where successive Governments had thrown them, and build vibrant strong communities. All housing developments must be integrated and people must be able to secure affordable and social housing within their communities.

The Government, in particular this Minister, will never do that because it will never accept that there is another way, other than that driven by free market economics. Perhaps the Minister is merely a competent right winger who cares nothing for the homeless, those living in overcrowded conditions and those commuting ridiculous distances because they cannot buy a home near where they work. Investment in housing is an investment for the future of society and communities. However, the Minister cannot accept this. That is why the Government will never deliver a right to housing which is at the core of Sinn Féin's approach to the housing crisis.

My party is committed to working for a properly funded national housing strategy and the establishment of a national housing agency to co-ordinate all aspects of housing provision. It is equally committed to the elimination of homelessness. Unlike this cowardly Government, it would intervene in the property market to ensure that all people are able to access affordable housing. Capital gains tax on speculative buyers would be increased. Sinn Féin would also ensure that developers did not cream off huge profits at the expense of communities who cannot house themselves.

The Minister's record on environment raises the question of what on earth is he doing with his portfolio. Since taking office, he has only paid lip service to environmental concerns and protection. Government policy has promoted private transport through road construction, incineration as a method of waste disposal and emissions trading as the preferred method of complying with the Kyoto Protocol. It shows little interest in promoting environmental sustainability. The Minister has distorted the polluter pays principle and has targeted households rather than the primary polluter, which is industry. The Minister will evidently not be content until he has further damaged our environment by forcing incineration on communities against their will. His commitment to incineration is in contrast to his lack of determination to reduce the amount of waste being created. Incineration flies in the face of a real environmental waste management strategy. It causes air pollution, the emission of toxic fumes and an increased volume of traffic generated by the transportation of waste over long distances. Building an incinerator requires large capital cost. Once built, it must be seen to be fed, which will lock incineration as the primary method of waste disposal for the next 20 years.

The Deputy is always preying on people's fears by talking such nonsense. That is all he is good for.

The Minister is not preying on people's fears but playing on the backs of the large speculators and developers, which has us where we are now.

The Deputy has some neck.

Deputy Morgan, without interruption.

If Deputy Cullen is not swiftly removed from his ministerial position, there will be a network of incinerators throughout this State pumping toxic ash into the environment.

Will the Deputy give me a break? He has some neck.

The Minister has trampled over our local elected representatives in his drive to have waste management services privatised. The introduction of bin charges——

If we were waiting for Deputy Morgan's crowd, we would be up to our necks in waste.

——is a deliberate pretext to the privatisation of all waste services, which is well under way. Bin charges are an unjust——

I have no ideological position on that issue.

Allow Deputy Morgan to continue without interruption.

——double taxation which penalise the less well-off in society. Under the threat of dissolution, local authorities have been forced to bring in these charges, causing real hardships. Though waivers are available in some cases, when waste services are privatised, this provision will immediately be dropped.

The Minister was recently quoted as saying he was not interested in more great debates. Do we know that?

Better to solve the problem than just talk about it.

This is evident in his dismissal of public concerns of the risk to democracy from his moves on electronic voting and the removal of powers from local government. The Minister, Deputy Cullen, has used his term in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to demonstrate his disregard for democracy. His contempt for local government has been manifested on numerous occasions. As he has pulled the non-elected city and county managers closer, he has pulled the control of local government away from community elected representatives, leaving them prostrate in powerless councils. Since taking office, the Minister has further centralised power in an already excessively centralised system of local government. The Local Government Act 2003 further diminished local democracy by deleting the provision in the Local Government Act 2001 for the direct election of cathaoirligh of city and county councils.

I again thank the Green Party for the opportunity to point out the Minister's waywardness. I call on Members to support this motion so as to remove this pillar of pro-privatisation that obstructs proper policy and incentive that will enhance the environment rather than damage it. By his record in office, the Minister stands indicted. He must resign.

I support this motion from the Green Party because of the range of specific issues for which the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has responsibility but has not inspired confidence. These issues are housing, the electoral process, the undermining of local government and animal welfare, the latter in which the Minister, in bad Fianna Fáil tradition, has no interest despite his responsibilities.

I wish to speak about housing issues. When the Minister, Deputy Cullen, enacted the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2002, he destroyed what I regarded as the most socially progressive measure to have come through the House in many years — the social and affordable housing provision in the Planning and Development Act 2000. I thought at that time that Fianna Fáil was turning over a new leaf by standing up to its old paymasters in the construction industry. It seemed that something effective and significant would be done for thousands of young people who had been removed from the house purchase market by the criminal rise in the price of property which was becoming unaffordable for increasing numbers of people.

The builders refused to co-operate with the provisions of the 2000 Act, however, preferring instead to stockpile 80,000 sites. They lobbied the Government intensively. It seems that the builders found a more than sympathetic ear when they lobbied the Minister, Deputy Cullen, who agreed to abandon the social integration measure in the 2002 Act. It was the most reactionary and regressive move by a Minister for quite some time. The Minister did not demonstrate incompetence in pursuing such a measure, as the Act was competently engineered by him at the behest of the builder-developer lobby.

It amazes me that despite the continuing rise in house prices and the ongoing hoarding of development land by a handful of greed-obsessed billionaires, the Minister boasts in his amendment this evening of "the 9th successive year of record housing supply" and what he refers to as "a strong social and affordable housing programme". I do not know where such a programme is to be found, but it is certainly not to be found in Dublin, where the only records are the record number of people on the city council's housing waiting list, the record number of people on the homeless list and the record number of unfortunate people sleeping rough in doorways and on pavements. It is certain that "affordability" is a meaningless term, in the home-owning context, for record numbers of people.

I would like to speak about electoral procedures. I fail to appreciate the Minister's rationale in squandering up to €70 million on electronic voting, while the Government robs widows of their meagre entitlements. The Minister claims in his amendment that the new voting system will achieve "more accurate and more secure electoral procedures". It is arrogant cynicism to claim that there will be increased security when there will not be any back-up or paper trail. If the Minister wants more secure electoral procedures, he should start by introducing regulations that make the production of reliable identification a necessity for all voters before they cast a vote. Such a measure would not involve any cost, other than the cost of the loss of personated votes to certain parties that do that sort of thing.

The Minister has undermined local democracy by transferring powers from elected councillors to managers in his misnamed Protection of the Environment Act 2003 and by threatening with dissolution councils that do not do his bidding on the bin charges issue. He has reneged on the innovative proposal to have directly-elected mayors, a fact conveniently and hypocritically forgotten by his partners in Government at last weekend's Progressive Democrats party conference. It is a pity he did not remind that party's leaders that they voted against the introduction of directly-elected mayors. Local government will be further weakened and the centrally-controlled managers will be further strengthened by the removal of the dual mandate without the introduction of provisions for full-time councillors with real powers.

This country is a disgrace in respect of animal welfare. There is a culture of cruelty among a small minority, against whom no legislative action is taken. The appalling conditions in so-called "puppy farms" are exposed by the ISPCA every week. We are told that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is engaged in discussions with relevant interests, but it seems that this is a code for doing nothing. The Department is far too busy giving licences to millionaire property developers to amuse themselves by terrorising tame domesticated deer with packs of hounds in contravention of the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1965. It issues licences to coursing clubs to traumatise the most timid of little animals. Such activities have been outlawed in most modern democracies, but the Minister, Deputy Cullen, has made no such moves.

I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak on this motion of no confidence in the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I will concentrate on the first three parts of the motion before the House, as they relate to important issues.

I am worried about our democratic process. I am worried and extremely angry about the fact that there are 50,000 people on local authority waiting lists. We should revisit the phrase "social housing", as there seems to be a strange attitude to it in the wider society. We should resolve this question soon, as the phrase "local authority housing" is good enough for me. The real issue in this debate is the fact that there are 50,000 people on housing waiting lists. It is a disgrace and an act of social vandalism. I believe strongly in the right to housing — houses should be built when people do not have enough. The Government should face the reality that there were more mass housing schemes in this country in poorer times than there are today.

We have a Minister who cannot deliver our post, a Minister who attacks working widows and a Minister who is so busy clapping himself on the back about his smoking ban and the new nanny state that he does not want to see or hear patients on trolleys or the 3,000 adults with intellectual disabilities on waiting lists. The Minister who is the subject of this debate cannot provide enough houses for those who want to make a positive financial contribution to the cost of their homes. That is the reality of the wealthy Ireland of 2004.

I would like to make some concrete and positive proposals in respect of housing. We need to legislate for the right to housing. Can the Minister explain why this has not been done? Housing is a basic human right. Ireland must honour its international obligations by guaranteeing a right to housing and by legislating to remove the inequalities in the housing system. Urgent action is needed to cut the record housing waiting list, which stands at 48,413 households. The local authority housing budget should be tripled to at least €1.7 billion in 2004. This would help to produce an output of at least 7,000 local authority housing units in 2004. It would begin to tackle the backlog on the housing waiting lists. The housing budget will need to be adjusted accordingly in the coming years to maintain the required level of housing output. I am also calling for an increase in the amount of local authority housing provided under Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000. This is needed because a massive 85% of households on housing waiting lists have incomes of less than €15,000. One could not afford to buy a home on such limited earnings.

Urgent action is needed to reduce the growing number of homeless young people and families with children. We should end the practice of housing families with children in bed and breakfast accommodation, other than in emergency cases. We should ensure that families do not stay in such accommodation for longer than a month before appropriate accommodation is secured. We have to provide adequate transitional and short-term housing, with access to appropriate support services, for families with children. We should provide move-on accommodation for families leaving emergency and bed and breakfast accommodation. Suitable housing and support services should be provided as part of a dedicated aftercare plan for young people leaving care. That is my rounded and broad view of housing.

I do not favour the Minister's boring new electronic voting system, which does not have a proper paper trail. There was nothing wrong with the dramatic system of people counting ballots by hand, which often led to exciting television coverage as details of counts and transfers were reported. I am concerned that the new system might drive voters away from polling stations and that the electorate might lose interest in politics. I urge Deputies to support the motion of no confidence in the Minister.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"affirms its confidence in the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and commends the actions taken by the Minister to:

— improve, and promote confidence in, the electoral process;

— support sustainable development including the protection of the high quality of our natural and built environment;

— accelerate the provision of social and economic infrastructure and protective services (including record levels of housing output);

— implement policies to advance balanced regional development and social inclusion;

— promote and support effective local government;

and, in particular, welcomes and endorses:

— in relation to the electoral process:

— improvement of the electoral system by the introduction, on a national basis, of more accurate and more secure electoral procedures;

— the establishment of the independent Commission on Electronic Voting to report on the secrecy and accuracy of the proposed voting system;

in relation to housing:

— the 9th successive year of record housing supply involving the addition of 68,819 new houses in Ireland;

— establishment of a strong social and affordable housing programme involving investment of some €1.8 billion in 2004;

in relation to waste management:

— the major progress achieved in the modernisation of waste management, including major increases in recycling of wastes and significant advances in the development of our waste infrastructure and services;

in relation to the national spatial strategy:

— the comprehensive range of measures which have been put in place at national, regional and local levels to support the continuing implementation of the National Spatial Strategy 2002-2020, in achieving its objectives related to more balanced regional development;

in relation to greenhouse gas emissions:

— the active implementation of the Government's national climate change strategy, including the recent approval by Government of a national allocations plan for emissions trading;

in relation to the protection of national heritage:

— the reorganisation of heritage functions at central government level to ensure optimum alignment and integration with his environmental protection responsibilities; and

in relation to the enhancement of, and the quality of access to, local democracy:

— the continuing reforms of the local government system, including the greater focusing of the role of the local representative and the introduction of service indicators to ensure the delivery of value to local communities."

I thank the Green Party for tabling the motion before the House.

There is a first time for everything.

At least the Minister turned up tonight — he did not turn up for our last Private Members' debate.

The motion gives Members an opportunity to examine the complete range of policies for which I have responsibility. I assure Deputies that I sincerely welcome the opportunity to debate the issues at length and in detail.

I agree with the Green Party that at the core of this debate is a significant difference in policy and approach. It is the difference between taking action which makes a difference and the politics of empty gestures and shallow rhetoric. In my time in this Department I have worked to ensure that Ireland has the highest rate of home building in Europe; to produce Ireland's first ever spatial strategy; to make local democracy more transparent and accountable; to dramatically increase recycling facilities; to reduce both domestic and waste production——

It is rising.

——to take the fight against Sellafield to the next level; and to do this in spite of the cynical, opportunistic and fundamentally flawed stance of the Green Party and its allies.

The contrast with the Green Party could not be more stark. As it has demonstrated yet again tonight, the Green Party does not believe it has any responsibility to set out credible policy options. It does not believe it needs to make a reasoned or proportionate contribution to debate. Most of all, it does not believe it must make any choices.

It is not by accident that the Green Party has become a laughing stock of the European Green movement.

Is that why its members come to speak at our conferences?

What about Fianna Fáil and its fascist friends?

Allow the Minister to continue without interruption.

It takes much effort to achieve that standing. As they wave their sunflowers in the air and congratulate themselves for being the guardians of all things worthy, they continue to refuse to make any constructive contribution to debate. Sanctimony, double standards and conspiracy theories form the core of their approach.

The Minister is not listening.

Deputies can imagine the scale of the outcry we would hear from the Greens if I was found to have the investment policies of Deputy Cuffe.

The Minister received €35,000 in political donations before the general election.

Yes, and I am proud of it. It shows that democracy works.

That was more than the Minister was allowed to spend.

The Deputy had his opportunity to speak. It is now the Minister's opportunity to respond.

The Minister lifted the cap on corporate donations.

What if the deputy leader of my party had copied the deputy leader of the Green Party in calling for a major economic recession in order to stop road developments?

Deputies

That is fiction.

It never happened.

The Minister is telling untruths again.

That is excellent policy in the style of the Greens. What would happen if a member of my party managed to come up with any of the wild-eyed conspiracies which are so much a part of Patricia McKenna's approach to politics? What if a member of any other party showed Deputy Gormley's liking for promoting any new slur——

This is a great defence of the Minister's office. He should keep slagging us instead of defending his own policies.

——such as he did against the Tánaiste during the election?

The Deputies have no intention of listening.

The Deputy must remain silent and allow the Minister to speak.

Deputy Boyle and his colleagues will not faze me.

I agree with the Greens that they do not operate to the standards of everyone else. They are more cynical and opportunistic than most.

It takes one to know one.

This should be no surprise to anyone, as they sit comfortably in a group which contains people who have taken approaches which directly undermine our environment. They sit beside Deputy Joe Higgins, who decided to go to jail in order to try to destroy a measure to deal with our waste crisis.

We sit in the same House as the Minister. It does not bother us that he is in the Chamber.

The House will surely not forget that Deputy Higgins announced on national radio that he waited until he was sitting snugly in his cell before taking the time to read anything about waste policy.

Where are the Minister's policies? Let us hear a defence of the Minister's policies.

Unlike Deputy Boyle, I have policies which I will explain to the House.

I am sorry that Deputy Morgan has left the House. The Greens also sit with the Sinn Féin Party, which has a one-size-fits-all approach to issues — whatever it is, it is against it. I congratulate its Deputies for sharing with us their opposition to illegal dumping — except, of course, when it involves semtex and Armalites. That is a different matter. Deputy Morgan showed much concern about environmental issues, but I would be happier to see him discuss his concerns about illegal waste dumping, which is a matter on which he might be able to help me, or oil laundering, which is something he and his colleagues know about, rather than filling the House with rhetoric.

The parties of the Technical Group share a remarkable distinction. None of them has ever bothered to publish a detailed alternative budget in order to show the people exactly what they are proposing.

The Minister is wrong again.

They adopt the Leona Helmsley approach to politics — detailed policy is for the little people.

The quote refers to taxes.

I know that.

The Minister should tell his donors that.

They live in a world without choices — a world in which there is a magic wand that can solve every problem, which is hidden because of a deep conspiracy. I reject this approach to politics, just as I have no problem in rejecting this motion and saying to the House that I am proud of my record as a member of Cabinet. Waste management has been my highest priority since coming into office. I have been up-front, direct and honest about the issues involved. Let us not kid ourselves — these are very serious issues.

The Minister has failed.

They require us to continue radical transformation of our waste management practices. This inevitably involves tackling difficult issues and making hard choices. It involves taking decisions, something which is not the Green Party's forte. Just as there are 40 shades of green, there are 40 shades of Green Party policy.

We are still not hearing about the Minister's policies.

Many of them are sickly shades. The end result is a complete mish-mash, which means absolutely nothing to anybody, not even the Green Party Members opposite.

Lacking in the courage and capacity to make difficult decisions, the Green Party's solution is to try to convince us all that decisions do not need to be made in the first place. Because they cannot put forward a credible policy of their own, they adopt the tactics of negative campaigning. They hope that in trying to knock the Government's policy, people will not realise the policy vacuum they inhabit. Faced with questions about waste policy, the Green Party's response falls somewhere between silence and fantasy.

The Minister has not read our policy documents.

It would have us believe that we can simply wish our waste away. Deputy Sargent, the Dáil's equivalent of Paul Daniels, can just click his fingers and utter the magic words "zero waste" and our waste disappears.

That is a different concept.

The Deputies should have some manners and listen to the Minister.

The use of the word "zero" in the context of Green Party waste policy is certainly appropriate — zero marks for zero credibility.

Has the Minister read our policy?

Yes, every detail, and it did not take me long. It will not take the children in school long to read it either. In the real world, where I live and where the electorate expects the Government to live, things are different. We are following a policy approach proven to be effective by the best waste managers in Europe.

That is because we are the worst.

This means that in the first place we prevent, re-use and recycle as much of our waste as we can.

Ten percent.

I ask Deputy Boyle to allow the Minister to continue without interruption. The Chair cannot allow this to continue.

I would be glad to, if the Minister will tell us his policies.

The Deputies should have some manners.

As usual, they just do not want to listen.

Then, in line with best European practice, the policy is that we should recover energy from waste through the use of thermal treatment technologies, ensuring that the amount of waste we ultimately consign to landfill — the least environmentally friendly approach — is kept to an absolute minimum.

At the mention of thermal treatment the Green Party members turn hysterical. Yet their Green colleagues have filled the environment portfolios in the German and French Governments, both of which — I sit on the environment Council at the moment — use thermal treatment as part of an integrated approach to waste management. If the Green Party is serious about trying to rationalise its "40 shades of green" policy it might do well to consult its European colleagues for a reality check.

Hear, hear.

This Government's clear policy approach to waste management is yielding results. Next week I will outline details of the progress made on the implementation of local authority waste management plans. While there is further work to do, substantial progress has already been made and is continuing. I thank the people for this.

The amount of waste produced per capita has increased by 500%.

The Deputy should allow the Minister to continue.

It is increasing.

The Deputy should save it for impressing his own party colleagues, because he is not impressing anyone in the House with that nonsense.

Clearly the Minister is not listening anyway.

This has been supported by a major package of Government funding. I have allocated €22 million in the past 18 months to support the delivery of more than 70 local authority recycling projects. This funding has been provided courtesy of the environment fund, which is financed by the proceeds of the plastic bags and landfill levies. This is an imaginative use of policy instruments by the Government to ensure that less desirable environmental activities fund activities higher up in the waste hierarchy.

That was our policy back in 1994.

We are working effectively with various sectors of business to secure major advances in the recovery of particular waste streams. The EPA reported last year that Ireland achieved its 25% target for the recovery of packaging waste in 2001 and Repak indicates that good progress continues to be made towards the 50% target for 2005. We will achieve this. The recovery of construction and demolition wastes and farm plastics is also surging ahead and the successful producer responsibility model will soon be rolled out to other waste streams.

Driven by a policy objective set by the Government, major progress has also been made on the introduction of use-based charging for waste. As the House will be aware, I announced recently that 1 January 2005 has been set as the date for the completion of the changeover to these systems nationwide, providing a real incentive to householders to recycle more and more of their waste.

We hear much talk about illegal waste activities from many quarters. When it comes to enforcement of the law on waste, my focus has been on actions rather than words, actions such as the establishment of a new Office of Environmental Enforcement within the Environmental Protection Agency, with waste as its top priority.

There were only eight prosecutions last year.

I know the Deputy cannot stomach it, but he should listen.

It is the effect of the Minister's policies that I cannot stomach.

My focus has been on actions like the strengthening of the enforcement provisions and penalties, which I provided for in the Protection of the Environment Act 2003 and the provision of €7 million to support local authorities in delivering on the first year of a major five-year waste enforcement programme, with a commitment of further funding in later years. I am resolutely determined to ensure that no effort is spared in the implementation of the law on waste. I will also liaise with the OEE on an ongoing basis and I will consider additional enforcement measures which its experience suggests might be required.

By raising the issue of the electoral process in this motion it is clear that the Green Party cares little about the need to encourage public support of the electoral process.

We would like a paper trail.

I know the Deputy would like to cut down the rain forest to provide the paper for such a trail. That is typically consistent Green Party policy — half a rain forest to provide a paper trail.

Half a rain forest.

For God's sake, give me a break.

What about the paper for the Minister's speech?

The Deputies should sit down and listen. Instead, of course, the Green Party seeks to revisit, in an unhelpful way, the debate which we had in this House just over a month ago on the introduction of electronic voting and counting. That debate was not about seeking safeguards for electronic voting.

Yes, it was.

It was not about security.

It was not about the integrity of the voting process.

It was purely about political point-scoring and it was damaging to the credibility of politics. This is clearly demonstrated by the public statements of the Opposition parties that they are in favour of electronic voting. Indeed, some have gone further and said they are in favour of Internet voting. That element of the motion before the House tonight, referring to the electoral process, is in a similar vein, it is a cynical political exercise which, if unanswered, would have the opposite effect to that which it purports to serve. The public are strongly in favour of the electronic voting process.

So are we.

Did Deputy Sargent ask the electorate in Dublin North for their views after the 2002 general election? No, but my Department did, and 87% of voters surveyed indicated that they preferred the electronic voting system to the paper ballot.

It is good I did not need a recount.

Is Deputy Sargent suggesting 87% of constituents are wrong? In total, the system has been used successfully 400,000 times in this country.

By those who vote for Fianna Fáil.

Thank God the people of this country do. They do not vote for the Green Party in any numbers. However, I accept the need to ensure that there is utmost confidence in our electoral system. That is why, in response to the concerns that were raised, the Government decided to establish an independent commission on electronic voting to report to the Ceann Comhairle on the secrecy and accuracy of the proposed arrangements. I also promised to introduce legislation to ensure that there is no doubt about the application of electronic voting to European, presidential and local elections. The debate on the Electoral (Amendment) Bill will commence in the House tomorrow.

Throughout Fianna Fáil's time in government, we have consistently delivered on the provision of housing for our people. We have responded to changing times, changing needs and changing economic circumstances. The economic boom under the stewardship of Fianna Fáil Governments over the past 15 years has seen a tripling of output in housing provision. We are now building houses at three times the European average output and five times the output of the UK. Last year saw the ninth consecutive year of record housing output, with almost 70,000 new houses completed. I reject the insulting approach to the Minister of State with responsibility for housing, which has been taken by the Green Party and others in this debate. He is doing a first class job for which he should be respected.

Where are the 10,000 new houses? Not a brick has been laid.

If that is the biggest blow the Opposition can wield and it does not listen to me, it can forget about it. We have not been afraid to innovate to suit new circumstances. Our urban renewal policies have reopened our cities and town centres as places in which to live. We have encouraged the provision of higher residential densities in our urban cores to make better use of the available land.

In my first year in office I introduced the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2002 to ensure that the innovative provisions under Part V of that Act had the necessary flexibility to deliver on the promise of those provisions.

The Minister filleted it for his developer friends.

That is untrue.

Give me a break. It is clear that social and affordable houses under Part V are now coming on stream in increasing numbers. We have identified sites under the affordable housing initiative under Sustaining Progress, which will deliver more affordable houses.

They have not been built.

Deputies are complaining that the planning system has not delivered yet, but when I try to introduce efficiency in the planning system to bring certainty to it, they also complain that it is not working. Would the Green Party Members make up their minds what they stand for? The people of this country do not have a bull's notion what they stand for.

They are a mass of contradictions.

The Minister will be judged on his results.

An incredible €1.8 billion will be invested this year in the various social and affordable housing schemes administered by my Department. The year 2002 saw the delivery of the highest level of output under the range of social and affordable housing measures for over 15 years, when the social and affordable housing needs of in excess of 12,700 households were met. While the March 2002 assessment of housing needs indicated that 48,400 households were listed as being in need of long-term social housing, it is important to remember that each of these households comprises individuals with their own set of needs.

They need a house.

It covers people who are single, people with families and people in a variety of existing accommodation. We need to ensure a range of responses that reflects these different needs and their relative priority. The Government's housing programme has been designed to respond to the full range of housing needs. To further tackle this issue, I recently asked local authorities to put in place five-year action plans covering the full range of their housing programmes. These plans will ensure that a full strategic approach is taken by local authorities and will ensure that they avail of the certainty provided by multi-annual expenditure programmes.

The Green Party accuses me of failing to implement a national spatial strategy, yet I am the first Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government ever to have brought forward such a strategy.

If the Minister wants to talk figures——

I know it is difficult for the Green Party to count beyond five but this is a 20-year planning framework for achieving more balanced regional development. It is probably true to say that the Green Party's real concern is that it will not be around in 20 years' time to see it come to fruition, whereas Fianna Fáil will still be in government, making and leading the dynamic changes that have occurred.

The Minister wants to kill us off.

What political party will the Minister be in then?

There is a strong focus on promoting the scale and critical mass at strategic regional locations — gateways and hubs — to lead and drive regional competitiveness. These strategic locations will in turn reach out to wider areas. In doing so, they will allow all areas of the country to grow to their potential. That has always been the approach of Fianna Fáil in government. We embrace all the people, not a selected elite.

I have put in place a comprehensive range of measures to advance the implementation of the national spatial strategy. There has been substantial progress on major NDP capital investment programmes supporting balanced regional development. In particular, I have maintained and increased the record level of investment in non-national roads, the arteries of local communities throughout the country.

If one has a car.

This year an unprecedented €4,610 on average will be spent on every kilometre of non-national road. Regional planning guidelines are well advanced in all regions and are expected to be adopted by May. Gateway implementation frameworks have been put in place — for example, the Cork area strategic plan and the Galway planning and transportation study. The Government's decentralisation programme sends a strong signal of our support for more balanced regional development.

In furthering the objective of rural housing policy framework, as set out in the national spatial strategy, the draft guidelines on sustainable rural housing, to which I referred, require local authorities to ensure that any demand for housing in rural areas suffering from population decline is accommodated.

The Minister's councils in Clare would not appear to agree with them.

That is because they misread them and were misled by the planner who gave an outline at the meeting. The draft guidelines are far-reaching.

How cynical are they?

For the first time, they provide a policy framework setting out in detail how Government policy on rural housing, as set out in the national spatial strategy, is to be taken forward by local authorities in planning more effectively for rural areas. The guidelines will deliver a new era of fairness and transparency in planning for rural dwellers. What do we get from the Green Party, however? That party, which does not have a single Member based in a rural area, wants to sit in its metropolitan ivory towers and pronounce to the people of rural Ireland about how they should live their lives.

The Minister does not know much about Fingal County Council.

Nor about my constituency.

That will not happen as long as Fianna Fáil is in Government.

That is Fianna Fáil's job.

The Green Party, whose deputy leader's contribution to regional development is to wish the collapse of the economy because it would force the Government to abandon new road projects vital to our regions——

That is totally false. I reject that. The person the Minister is accusing is not present and cannot defend herself. The Minister is uttering an untruth.

The Deputy has had his opportunity and I ask him to resume his seat.

The Minister is trying to give a false impression.

I do not have to give a false impression of the Green Party. It is well able to act on its own. It does not need help.

The Minister might as well sit down.

Deputy Sargent is the Paul Daniels of the Dáil — "Now you see it, now you don't".

We are in a national Parliament, not a crèche. I ask Members to behave themselves.

The bottom line is the Green Party is against everything.

We favour the Minister's resignation.

The party claims concern for rural development, but when it comes to something such as these guidelines or decentralisation, its Members will form queues on the plinth trying to get a new denunciation on camera.

The Minister is jealous.

The party will have a long wait for that to happen.

The Minister should not allow himself to be provoked and should address his remarks through the Chair.

The Green Party criticises me for failing to comply with international obligations on greenhouse gases, yet tomorrow Ireland will be one of only two member states to notify the European Commission of its national allocation plan for emissions trading by its deadline. Ireland, under my direction, is leading the European field in this area.

We are the worst country in the world.

The Minister is leading us down a cul-de-sac.

The Green Party always says Ireland is the worst country for everything but it is the most dynamic country in the world and, as long as Fianna Fáil is in power, it will remain so.

We will pay dearly for it.

While Ireland's economic success has placed pressure on our emissions levels, the positive indications are that emissions growth is peaking. Overall greenhouse gas emissions in 2002 show Ireland at a little under 29% over 1990 levels as opposed to 31% in 2001.

What is this year's figure?

This is the first decrease in emissions in a decade. The Government's national climate change strategy is a clear and systematic programme for meeting our Kyoto obligations and it sets out a ten-year policy framework for achieving the necessary greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Many measures are in place and our economy is much more energy efficient than a decade ago.

The Minister is again confused.

This is only a step in the right direction and we must continue to strive for every opportunity across all sectors of our economy to achieve the necessary sustainable emissions reduction in the most economically and environmentally efficient manner. The introduction of emissions trading from 1 January 2005 is only the pilot phase, a learning phase. The industrial and power generation sector is aware that the post-2008 phase will be much more ambitious and I will not be found wanting in taking the necessary measures to meet our commitments.

God help us.

I refer to Ireland's international commitments and standing in the international community. I will have the honour next month of chairing a meeting of OECD Environment Ministers. This meeting will assess the progress made in implementing national and international environmental commitments and will identify key areas requiring additional action. I will work to ensure the OECD Ministers give increased impetus to international co-operation for the good of the environment.

The Minister gives a good example.

I am the first Irish Minister or EU representative to be asked to chair such a meeting.

That is because the Minister has the worst record on greenhouse gas emissions.

If the OECD had a question about Ireland's environmental credentials, it would not have been invited to chair the meeting.

It is in recognition of the Minister's work.

On behalf of the Government, I have consistently led the case against Sellafield. Two cases have been taken against the United Kingdom to international tribunals in the Hague. I have consistently opposed the culture of secrecy that prevails in Britain's nuclear industry.

That is all huff and puff. There is no action.

Ireland has a right to be fully informed about all aspects of Sellafield's activities which result in actual or potential environmental damage to the Irish Sea, as well as information which Ireland needs to help protect against the possibility of terrorists targeting Sellafield.

Ireland's need for information about BNFL's activities at Sellafield has been starkly illustrated by today's decision by the European Commission, which the Government and I greatly welcome. BNFL has failed to meet a basic standard of the nuclear industry — the requirement to maintain a complete inventory of nuclear material.

Ireland's robust litigation has focused the attention of the Commission on Sellafield. For years, Commission inspectors visited pond B30 but could make no meaningful inspection of it and the Commission was fobbed off by vague and informal BNFL promises that were never fulfilled. Ireland, under the leadership of the Government and through the Taoiseach's contacts with the British Prime Minister, is leading the way against Sellafield like never before and the Commission, in taking more effective action, is following Ireland's lead.

The Minister has achieved nothing. He still cannot get inspectors in there.

On taking office the Government committed itself to a vigorous programme of environmental protection and renewal. It was appropriate that my Department was given responsibility for all the natural and built environment, in addition to its existing environmental protection remit, given the new focus on environmental sustainability.

My Department has made significant progress on enhancing the protection of our built and natural heritage. Under the national inventory of architectural heritage, 21 interim town surveys and eight county surveys have been completed and published and four or five more will be published this year.

Where is Dúchas?

This is the database which informs the protection of buildings of architectural interest under the Planning and Development Acts. I have maintained progress on the archaeological survey of Ireland with county reports for more than two thirds of all counties published. The first ever volume of a national shipwreck survey will be completed this year.

I have also supported a partnership approach with the development sector to ensure the protection of the archaeological heritage and Bord na Móna, Coillte, the National Roads Authority, the Irish Concrete Federation and the ESB have successful codes of practice in place. Other codes will follow and will allow for early identification of potential impacts on the heritage so they can be mitigated. I will also publish this year comprehensive legislation to consolidate the National Monuments Acts, 1930 to 1994, to modernise the legislative code and to strengthen the protection of the built heritage.

This is because the courts forced the Minister to do so after he acted beyond his powers.

All Green Party Members want to do is hang out of trees and talk out the back of their heads. That is as much as they contribute.

Since coming into office in June 2002 I have, by any objective standard, made significant progress in protecting our natural heritage by working with farmers and other interests to achieve the best balance between farming and land use and requirements for conserving nature in all these special areas.

The Minister called in the bulldozers at Carrickmines.

Special areas of conservation were proposed in respect of major river systems, including the Boyne-Blackwater, the Barrow-Nore, the Suir and the Slaney in June 2003. The proposal of sites for designation as SACs is nearing completion and it is time to move on to active management of these sites.

I have also made significant progress towards designating additional special protection areas under the birds directive and the designation of natural heritage areas under the Wildlife Acts. I signed 58 orders to protect raised bog sites as natural heritage areas in December last year. In years to come, people will look back on this period as the time the most far-sighted steps since the foundation of the State were taken to protect our built and natural heritage for future generations. Only a Fianna Fáil-led Government could have done it.

Where is the truth? Who does the Minister think he is — Charlie Haughey?

The Green Party criticises me for failing to enhance local democracy. Where have its Members been for the past two years? Does the party not realise that I brought in the legislation to end the dual mandate to ensure local councillors represent a local voice on local issues? The Green Party advocated this policy once.

And implemented it.

What about elected mayors?

I have provided unprecedented resources to local authorities to enhance the services that local government delivers to local communities. Since the last local election support from the local government fund to local authorities has increased by 83%. Local government must provide value for money and be open and transparent. That is why I recently introduced 42 new performance indicators for local authorities. The public will see how their local authority is performing — what is working and why and what is not working. The 42 indicators span the full range of local authority services and include percentage and tonnage of household waste recycled, average time taken to get a pre-planning consultation, levels of housing vacancies, the average number of opening hours in public libraries and so on.

No other sector has gone so far in adopting a sector-wide approach to these services.

What powers have councillors?

In tabling the motion, the Green Party has again demonstrated it lacks political maturity. Rather than construct reasoned and realistic policies based on the facts, it remains wedded to the soft option, the elevation of woolly aspiration above actual achievement. Let us call this motion what it is — a stunt. Until such time as Ireland's Greens put substance before soundbite and adopt a serious and pragmatic approach to environmental issues, as many of their European counterparts have done, they cannot and will not be taken seriously.

The Minister should get off the stage.

The Government's focus remains on action, implementation and delivery. It would have been better if we had the active support of a party that claims such strong environmental credentials. Instead the Green Party seeks to do what it does best, obstruct and delay. The people and I are not prepared to let the Green Party continue to obstruct and delay.

With the permission of the House, I wish to share my time with Deputies McCormack, Naughten and Neville.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Minister has talked a good talk, but his performance since taking office has not lived up to his view of his ability. He is behaving like Superman when his performance is more akin to Mighty Mouse.

Since taking office, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government has stated he wants to increase the limits of political donations. Why would he not do so as he is the recipient of the highest level of donations in 2002? He launched a national spatial strategy to almost no effect. The Government's decentralisation programme not only ignored but seemed to be contrary to the ethos of the national spatial strategy, which was to create self-sustaining hubs of activity. Instead of working to reduce pollution in the atmosphere, he has championed incineration and is beginning to see his wishes implemented, with incinerators going ahead in Counties Meath and Cork and about to go ahead in Waterford and Ringsend, Dublin.

What stands out as the greatest failures of the Minister, Deputy Cullen, are housing and the attempted introduction of the proposed electronic voting system, which we will deal with in more detail tomorrow. The continued debt burden being forced on young people and the marginalisation of those on housing waiting lists and those who cannot even go on the waiting list must be condemned. The Minister has ignored the people. He decided to eliminate the first-time buyer's grant. He stood idly by as the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, raised the VAT rate on houses by 1% and he has allowed the drip feed of land for development to continue while prices move more out of reach of first-time buyers.

The Minister promised that a commission would look at the land holding in Dublin and report before the end of 2003. We have not had sight nor sound of that report in spite of the promises. It is a short-term strategy that cares little for the young, who will be Ireland's future. The Minister is creating a generation of debt-ridden people who cannot afford to take risks to open up businesses in the open market. This is an anti-enterprise Minister and Government.

The introduction of electronic voting, if it is allowed, will be a sad day for Irish democracy. People will no longer be able to see his or her vote being cast and counted and we must trust the system which uses two separate types of computers and has major question marks over its reliability, accuracy, transparency and security. This is not a system that the electorate has looked for, but one which the Minister is thrusting upon us. He has failed to prove the system. He stifled debate by keeping reports under wraps and has seen to it that the committee finished its deliberations prematurely, thereby allowing the money to be committed, and by insisting on using scaremongering tactics such as that somebody opposed to the system is either a Luddite or a crackpot. The people can see through this and would like the Minister to be honest for a change. He must add the verifiable paper audit trail to the system immediately, but more on that tomorrow.

The system of local government has been done untold damage by the Minister. He has forced local authorities to increase service charges in line with the Government's tax by stealth policies. He knew he could save money by forcing local government to find more finance locally for the same service. The double blow is that when people pay more for the same service, they blame local authorities and local politicians and this creates a bad image of local government in general. He decided also that development levies should be jacked up to fund local government and the cost of services to rezone land had to be diverted to pay for the cost of benchmarking. The Taoiseach and the Minister have been great at promising to do something about the housing crises. They have promised one-off housing guidelines, with which councillors could not agree.

The Taoiseach promised 10,000 houses under Sustaining Progress but 12 months later, not a single house has been designed or built. It was proposed to have constitutional change in the housing area. The committee on the Constitution has talked about taxing land holding, but anybody who knows Fianna Fáil and the tactics used in the past seven years knows that this is another false promise before another election. The Minister has ensured that demand continues to outstrip supply at an unsustainable rate. Perhaps someone else in Fianna Fail has what it takes to come to grips with this Department. The Fine Gael Party supports this motion.

It is a serious matter when a political party tables a motion of no confidence, and I am sure the Green Party did not do so lightly. The public and Members have lost confidence in the Minister. Governments become arrogant and complacent when in office for a long time, and the Minister, Deputy Cullen, has fallen into that trap. Having listened to the debate, I hope he will learn from it. The Minister thanked the Green Party for tabling the motion and referred to the party on several occasions, with three favourable mentions during his contribution.

I will deal with just two aspects of the Minister's failure, first electronic voting, which will be dealt with in more detail tomorrow. I wonder what is driving the Minister in this regard? Most Ministers would like to have a monument to their achievement — for example, the Taoiseach failed to deliver the Bertie bowl. I hope the Minister for Health and Children's monument does not go up in smoke. The Minister, Deputy Cullen, thought electronic voting would be a suitable monument, but the issue was handled so badly that the Opposition, the public and perhaps the Minister's partners in government were not behind the Minister.

I am conscious of this issue because I am on the environment committee with Deputy Allen and other Members and I remember clearly the manner in which this matter was handled at the environment committee on 18 December, when in a premature vote the Government members stifled further debate on it that day. The contract was signed the next day, 19 December, yet we found out under the Freedom of Information Act that three months before the contract was signed, €20 million worth of machines had been important to Ireland and 1,100 machines had been delivered to Ireland before they were verified in September. If the Minister had been in a public company, he would have been sacked immediately. Those are some of the reasons that the Green Party has tabled this motion of no confidence.

The Minister referred to the Green Party motion as a stunt, but since the Minister shaved off his beard, the greatest bare-faced stunt — pardon the pun — that he produced is the pretence to be in favour of once-off rural houses, pretending to the councillors and people in rural areas that he will change this area. I challenge the Minister that no planning permission will be granted before 11 June 2004 to a person who was previously refused permission

It has already happened.

It will not. In early March the Minister sent out draft proposals to the planning authorities which have until 31 April 2004 to reply. Before the end of May, the real proposals will go out but there will be no opportunity between then and 11 June to lodge an application and receive a decision. Of course we will find out after 11 June that it is only a stunt. Even if there is a difference in what is proposed, every county development plan will have to be amended to cater for it which would involve a six-month process. At that point, we will be safely over the local elections.

Perhaps this motion was premature. The real vote of confidence in the Minister will take place on 11 June in the local elections. The people will then have an opportunity to demonstrate their confidence in Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. The people of Galway have realised that no matter what the Minister says about the planner in Clare misleading the councils there will be no change in any planning decision unless there is a change in the relevant county development plan. I have checked this with my local planning authority. A change to a county development plan cannot be achieved until the end of the year. By then, the Minister will be safely over the local and European elections. I warn the people of west Galway and every other rural area to be very careful on 11 June. They must not be taken in by the Government's deception. It is to warn them that I rise to support this motion. I am not one for putting down motions and I would sooner let the people judge confidence in the Minister.

I did not think I would see the day the Deputy would support such a motion. I am surprised.

I support the motion because of my experience of the Minister trying to pull this type of stunt. The Minister should believe me when I tell him he will not get away with it.

I would have thought Fine Gael would have supported me.

Already, Fianna Fáil councillors in Clare are wise to him as are the people in Galway. The Minister should relax. We will deal tomorrow far more extensively with the stunt he is trying to pull on electronic voting.

The dolly birds will not save him then.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. While the national spatial strategy was announced with a fanfare, we have yet to see if an implementation group will be established with a supervisory role to ensure it is delivered upon. An example of the farce of the national spatial strategy is that while the midland towns of Athlone, Mullingar and Tullamore constitute a new growth hub, County Roscommon, which is adjacent to the first of these, is in the western region. While the plans have come out over the last few weeks detailing the manner in which the Minister sees hubs growing, the people who live within 100 yards of the hub of Athlone are not allowed to have an input into its development plan. That is indicative of the planning under way. The national spatial strategy is supposed to plan for the next 20 years, but the Minister does not know what regions are involved and how it is being structured.

Nothing happened with the Government's decentralisation plans. There has been no co-ordination. It is a typical example of the operation of the Minister's Department. We see it again on the Water Services Bill. Water is a very interesting issue and the Bill will allow for the privatisation of water services. The Minister spoke earlier about the special protection areas and clapped himself on the back. Can the Minister tell me when the negotiations open with farmers in the Shannon callows on compensation for special protection areas? Not only have they not been concluded, but discussions were not ongoing from the time the Minister took office until I put down a parliamentary question to find out that nothing was happening. Despite this, the Minister clapped himself on the back. What else should we expect from the Minister?

He is dithering on that issue and he is dithering on the nitrates directive. The Department of Agriculture and Food went to Brussels with one proposal on the nitrates directive while the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government went there with another. Surely, one of the Ministers could have picked up the telephone to ask what proposals were being put forward to ensure the Government had a common approach. It could not be done as it would have been a good idea. At this point, there are two separate proposals before the European Union. We held a very weak discussion on whether the nitrates directive should be issued as a whole. Can someone explain to me the logic behind the designation of the country and the closed period? Under the famous closed period, one cannot spread slurry even if the weather is at its finest in 12 months. From the day the closed period reopens, the rain could spill for six months preventing one from spreading slurry. Sadly, when it comes to adopting the logical, sensible approach on the environment brief, the Minister has failed. We cannot predict the weather and the Minister cannot put basic structures in place to ensure flexibility. How can we put forward two proposals to Brussels when one must contradict the other? The Minister will get his answer next June as director of elections for Fianna Fáil and as Minister with responsibility for the electronic voting system. He might have spent €50 million on it and he might spend a great deal more to promote his candidates, but he will get his answer come 11 June.

I wish also to make a point about the Minister's role in protecting the environment and promoting the race against waste campaign. The greatest criminal act in the context of the campaign has involved the cost of advertising which is doing nothing. There is no point talking about the race against waste unless alternatives are put in place. The only alternative the Government is talking about is incineration. While the Minister talks about recycling facilities, every county manager with a landfill is afraid to put them in place because he or she thinks they will reduce the income of the local authority. Income is the only priority county managers have. The Minister is the person who gave managers the responsibility for implementing the waste management strategy rather than leaving it with the local authority members who would have ensured that the recycling facilities were established. They would not have prioritised the Minister's issue of incineration. I commend the motion.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter. In the very short time I have I wish to examine two issues. I would like the Minister to examine the rationalisation of the disabled person's grant, special housing aid for the elderly and the essential repairs grant, for which there is an urgent need.

I am looking at that at the moment.

Very good.

For 12 months.

It is very difficult.

The Minister should clear the backlog.

I am glad to hear the Minister is examining this issue. That there are difficulties in many counties with regard to the disabled person's grant was brought to our attention by the Irish Wheelchair Association last year. While we have managed in Limerick County Council to deal with the essential repairs grant reasonably well, special housing aid for the elderly is in crisis. It is a disgrace and it does not mean anything to most people. People have been joining the list for years and some of them died before anything was done. I know people who have been waiting 12 months to have a bath they can no longer use converted to a shower. What is the point in someone having to wait that long? I have a very elderly constituent with an incurable back injury who has been waiting for such a conversion for over 12 months. It is a simple but vital service for an elderly person. I do not have time to deal with all the issues involved, but I draw it to the Minister's attention.

Limerick County Council has built many houses in Rathkeale over the years which are now being bought for prices above their value for cash before being shut up. People who do not want to sell their houses see neighbours on the same estates being forced, intimidated or otherwise deciding to sell. Yesterday, a woman came to me and said she had five callers offering her cash for her house. She was told that if she did not sell her house at this time, they would buy it for half the value at a later stage. The woman in question tried to get a mortgage to build another house, but because she is not in full-time employment she cannot obtain one. She is selling her house because she is forced to. While she will earn €40,000, it is useless to her because she cannot buy a house with it. She will be homeless. Various Ministers, and the Taoiseach before the last election, promised to examine the difficulties in Rathkeale. I implore the Minister to ask his staff to examine this.

Debate adjourned.

Message from Select Committee.

The Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service has completed its consideration of the following revised Estimates for the public services for the year ending 31 December 2004: Votes 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17.

Top
Share