Vol. 685 No. 4
22 Deputy Phil Hogan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the environment policy priorities which will be considered for inclusion in the new programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25397/09]
When the process and timeline for the review of the programme for Government are agreed, I will be discussing with my colleagues in government the environmental policy priorities which we will continue to pursue so as to ensure that the Government's ambitious agenda in this regard is delivered and indeed enhanced.
We have made significant progress on our environmental priorities in the two years since the current programme for Government was agreed. In particular, my primary motivation in entering government was to tackle the defining issue of climate change. We have now changed the nature of public discourse on this issue, through many areas of Government action, for example on energy efficiency, building standards, transport emissions and the annual carbon budget, and through our support for an ambitious EU climate policy and leadership role at wider international level. In order to address the climate challenge it is necessary that our policy and practical responses are consolidated and intensified in the period ahead.
The progress being made in many environmental areas, including waste management, where an international review is well advanced, water services, where major investment is being maintained at a time of budgetary constraint, enforcement and compliance, including through the resourcing of the EPA and my Department's National Parks and Wildlife Service and the pursuit of sustainable development through strengthened planning under the new Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2009, are all matters of record.
Overall, it is a firm objective of Government to work towards a clean and safe environment for all. In the context of the planned review of the programme for Government, I am confident that we will build on and strengthen the commitments and objectives already agreed so that the protection and enhancement of the quality of our environment remains at the centre of Government policy.
Arising from the Minister's reply I asked him if he has any specific priorities in the environment area for the review of the programme for Government but the Minister did not indicate any. I ask him to have another go at it and tell the House whether he has ideas which he would like to see in the review of the programme for Government. Has he a specific statement to make about process and timeline with regard to the output or outcome of these discussions? Will the result of the review of the programme for Government be put to the members of the Green Party in order to establish whether they agree or disagree with his version of events?
As much as I would like to reveal to the Deputy the elements of the review, I think he will understand that these are matters for the respective parties in government and much of the review process will have to remain confidential and the process and the timeline have not yet been agreed. One aspect that has been flagged already and I have spoken about it is the idea of a climate change Bill. This is very close to the heart of many people in my own party and it is also a priority for many of the non-governmental organisations. Such a Bill would enshrine many of the elements we have already introduced, including the idea of a carbon budget. This may have to be refined and I am currently considering this matter.
For the past number of years the carbon budget has been announced directly after the budget speech. I am not sure if this is entirely appropriate because it tends to become overshadowed by the budget considerations. We will have to decide whether it should be held on the next day or a week later. These may be fairly minor elements but we have set up the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security which is chaired by one of the Deputy's colleagues. The sub-committee which directs discussions between the various Departments is chaired by the Taoiseach. This sub-committee aims to ensure that CO2 emissions can be reduced across all Departments. These are very important considerations but other elements relating to the environment include the progression of the issue of waste management and the very important question of the protection of our waterways and the question of septic tanks — which will be discussed later this afternoon — and a range of other issues. All these issues will be included in the discussions. I will be happy to keep the Deputy informed but as yet, we are going through what are called the modalities and the timeline has not been set.
The reason I asked the Minister to outline his priorities is because six weeks ago a review of the programme for Government was a very important issue when his colleague, Senator Boyle, floated the notion. He must have had a reason for doing so but obviously not so good a reason now that the elections have passed. In the run-up to the elections we needed something for the Green Party to talk about but since the Minister has now outlined some of the ideas, I ask him whether the White Paper on local government reform will be published — although it is eight or nine months behind time — and will it be done in the context of the forthcoming Commission on Taxation report? What is the timescale for that report? The Minister has made one suggestion.
The Minister did not do that well in the previous programme for Government because 95% of it was copied and pasted from the Fianna Fáil manifesto. I am wondering where the big idea is or whether it will be more of the same over the next while. The climate change Bill is an interesting proposal. I note that my colleagues in the Labour Party have published a similar Bill and I have views on this subject. After two years in office I would have thought the Minister would have got agreement from his partners in government about a climate change Bill.
I have stated in the House on previous occasions that I believe there are flaws in the legislation as proposed by the Labour Party and I have outlined some of those flaws to the House. It is our intention to continue to strengthen environmental legislation. The Deputy asked about the White Paper on local government. I agree this will have to be published following the consultation with the Commission on Taxation which is due to report in July. It would not have made sense, frankly, to publish a White Paper on local government reform and not look at the issue of local government funding and the broadening of the revenue base for local government.
Today I am announcing the €200 charge for second homes which should be welcomed by the Deputy's party and other parties if they are serious about local government reform and the need to fund local government. Progress is being made on a broad range of issues. The review is taking place and it will be a very thorough review. I am confident it will strengthen environmental legislation.
I now propose to take Question No. 24 as I am advised that Question No. 23 may be taken at the conclusion as the Deputy who tabled it is not in the House, if the Minister is agreeable.
I ask the Acting Chairman to remind me to answer Question No. 23 when the time comes.
I will do my best.
24 Deputy Phil Hogan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will clarify his policy on the disposal of hazardous waste generated from incineration; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25398/09]
Under the Waste Management Acts the statutory responsibility for hazardous waste management planning, including such wastes generated by incineration, rests with the Environmental Protection Agency, which has recently published the National Hazardous Waste Management Plan 2008-2012. The plan sets out the scope of legislative controls in relation to hazardous waste management and contains recommendations and options for the expansion of hazardous waste treatment facilities to ensure the better management of this waste stream and so that Ireland can fulfil the requirement of the EU Waste Framework Directive that a policy of national self sufficiency in disposal installations be adopted by all member states.
The EPA has recently launched a request for a tender to explore the technical and economic aspects of developing a national difficult waste management facility, the primary element of which will be a hazardous waste landfill. A final report on this study is expected by December 2009.
My Department has no role in determining the number, scale or location of hazardous waste management facilities, which are matters for the relevant planning authorities including, as appropriate, An Bord Pleanála and the EPA, in regard to its statutory functions in respect of hazardous waste and the licensing of relevant waste facilities generally.
The Minister said he is totally opposed to incineration, and I respect that view. He is now referring to the context of an international review. He is also imposing additional costs on landfill. Why did the Minister wait until two years after his appointment when contracts were signed in relation to Poolbeg, for example, to make a statement? Were there legal constraints on his doing so sooner? I would like to hear an explanation.
Once a licence has been issued to a landfill operator for the disposal of fly ash, can the Minister give a guarantee that local residents will be informed of the new facility for the disposal of hazardous material? A number of transparency issues arise if we wish to ensure that people understand what is going on. Can the Minister clarify?
I am not sure what Deputy Hogan means when he speaks about the signing of contracts. The contracts to which he refers were signed two years ago.
Why did the Minister not do something then?
The Deputy is talking about hazardous waste facilities. This is a matter for the EPA and for the contractor, whichever company that may be. As I outlined, the EPA has done extensive work on this. The National Hazardous Waste Management Plan 2008-2012 is a statutory document prepared by the EPA in accordance with the Waste Management Acts 1996-2008. It also satisfies the Hazardous Waste Directive, which requires member states to draw up plans for hazardous waste and sets out priority actions which should be taken during the period of the plan on the prevention of hazardous waste, improved collection rates of certain categories of hazardous waste, the steps required to improve Ireland's self sufficiency in hazardous waste management and the management of certain legacy hazardous waste, such as contaminated soil. I have been doing that in the context of Haulbowline. Huge amounts of money have been invested in the remediation of that site.
The quantity of hazardous waste generated in 2006 was 284,000 tonnes, which is an 8% decrease since 2004. Some 31% of this waste was treated on site of generation at EPA/IPPC licensed facilities. This waste was subject, in various forms, to incineration, solvent recycling, landfill and use as a fuel. A further 21% was treated off site in Ireland by a network of authorised hazardous waste treatment facilities and 48% of it was exported for treatment abroad, mostly for thermal treatment but also for metal recovery, solvent recovery and landfill.
The Minister has taken a policy position regarding landfill, hazardous waste and incineration. Why did it take him two years to make these statements? Why did he not decide policy directly upon entering office rather than waiting for waste contracts to be signed?
I do not understand what the Deputy means when he speaks about making a statement.
The Minister has said on many occasions that he expected An Bord Pleanála or the EPA to respect ministerial announcements rather than Government policy. In other words, what the Minister says on planning and development matters should be respected rather than Government policy. Some time ago when permission was granted for incineration in Poolbeg he said he expected An Bord Pleanála to respect what the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government said rather than Government policy, for which he did not have approval to underpin what he was saying.
I did not say that.
Why did he not do the same with regard to hazardous waste, the issue I am raising today?
Are residents likely to be fully informed of the consequences of living near a hazardous waste facility and of all matters relating the ash which must be disposed of?
Local residents must be informed. Developments must go through the normal planning and licensing procedures. I do not understand what the Deputy is saying about making statements. Planning legislation requires that cognisance be taken of the policy of the Minister/Government.
That is not what the Minister said.
That is what I said. I have quoted that.
The Minister is changing what he is saying. He should read back over his statements.
I am happy that a comprehensive review is almost completed. It will deal in detail with the best options for the future. The most important thing is that we divert biodegradable waste from landfill. That is our biggest task in the context of the Landfill Directive. The best way to do that is to issue the new food regulations. I hope Ireland will be one of the leading countries in doing so. That will divert food from restaurants, the commercial sector and homes away from landfill and get away from biodegradable waste, which causes methane and other greenhouse, gases.
25 Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the effect of circular letter Fin 03/2009 of 13 February 2009 on the funding of each local authority, particularly in relation to the prohibition of spending of development levies that were held on account before 1 January 2009; his rationale for issuing said directive; the estimated sum that is held by each local authority along with the total sum held nationally; the time he will keep the directive in place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25336/09]
In February 2009, my Department set out details of the financial requirements for local authorities relating to the overall management of their capital and current accounts. These arise from the ongoing requirements for Government finances as a whole to be managed in accordance with the Stability and Growth Pact established under the Maastricht Treaty and the associated limitation on budget deficits. In this regard, the Government set a limit of €200 million for the contribution that the local government sector can make to the deterioration in the general Government balance in any one year. This is not a new requirement for 2009, but current economic and budgetary considerations require all sectors, including local authorities, to ensure effective control and management of public finances. To stay within the overall limit for the general Government balance, it is necessary for local authorities to manage their finances and to maintain their current and capital accounts broadly in balance for 2009. Within this general requirement, there is capability for borrowing by local authorities for capital infrastructure.
Development contributions have been an important addition to the capital funding resource of local authorities but they are only one element. Local authorities generate capital income from a variety of sources. There is no prohibition on councils spending development contributions. The only requirement on local authorities is that in aggregate capital income should equal capital expenditure in the year.
My Department will continue to work closely with local authorities to ensure that within the overall financial limits to be met, decisions on these matters are taken in a way which gives the necessary prioritisation to environmental, economic and social infrastructure as part of the overall contribution to economic recovery. I recognise that these requirements may pose challenges for a small number of local authorities and I am making every effort to address this matter within the overall GGB requirements for the sector.
The accounting code of practice requires local authorities to submit their annual financial statements by 1 July. Therefore figures for 31 December 2008 are not yet available. The overall development contributions balance at 31 December 2007, comprising both cash and debtors, is some €1.524 billion. A breakdown by local authority is in the following table. These funds are being released over time as projects progress to completion.
|
Auth. No. |
Auth. Name |
Development Levies Balance at 31/12/07 |
|
€ |
||
|
County Councils |
||
|
1 |
Carlow |
7,607,276 |
|
2 |
Cavan |
15,965,808 |
|
3 |
Clare |
15,054,423 |
|
4 |
Cork |
76,776,985 |
|
5 |
Donegal |
18,954,130 |
|
6 |
Fingal |
215,744,569 |
|
7 |
Dun Laoghaire Rathdown |
129,803,868 |
|
8 |
Galway |
8,339,060 |
|
9 |
Kerry |
18,475,135 |
|
10 |
Kildare |
37,890,151 |
|
11 |
Kilkenny |
30,155,258 |
|
12 |
Laois |
49,273,156 |
|
13 |
Leitrim |
16,625,243 |
|
14 |
Limerick |
24,711,772 |
|
15 |
Longford |
17,613,765 |
|
16 |
Louth |
52,566,007 |
|
17 |
Mayo |
23,753,334 |
|
18 |
Meath |
91,271,485 |
|
19 |
Monaghan |
6,457,448 |
|
20 |
North Tipperary |
12,674,596 |
|
21 |
Offaly |
15,326,529 |
|
22 |
Roscommon |
29,460,705 |
|
23 |
Sligo |
8,435,460 |
|
24 |
South Dublin |
75,299,222 |
|
25 |
South Tipperary |
18,192,771 |
|
26 |
Waterford |
13,568,829 |
|
27 |
Westmeath |
27,740,778 |
|
28 |
Wexford |
49,175,737 |
|
29 |
Wicklow |
-2,682,821 |
|
SUBTOTAL |
1,104,230,677 |
|
|
City Councils |
||
|
30 |
Cork |
17,766,361 |
|
31 |
Dublin |
108,902,746 |
|
32 |
Galway |
25,282,118 |
|
33 |
Limerick |
19,012,886 |
|
34 |
Waterford |
5,482,393 |
|
SUBTOTAL |
176,446,503 |
|
|
Town & Borough Councils |
||
|
35 |
Clonmel |
4,314,650 |
|
36 |
Drogheda |
20,112,294 |
|
37 |
Kilkenny |
5,530,466 |
|
38 |
Sligo |
5,866,954 |
|
39 |
Wexford |
4,149,557 |
|
40 |
Arklow |
12,185,558 |
|
41 |
Athlone |
11,286,788 |
|
42 |
Athy |
3,053,668 |
|
43 |
Ballina |
5,452,809 |
|
44 |
Ballinasloe |
1,296,703 |
|
45 |
Birr |
1,496,204 |
|
46 |
Bray |
6,723,719 |
|
47 |
Buncrana |
1,781,623 |
|
48 |
Bundoran |
867,598 |
|
49 |
Carlow |
9,529,662 |
|
50 |
Carrick on Suir |
3,244,048 |
|
51 |
Carrickmacross |
520,735 |
|
52 |
Cashel |
1,544,776 |
|
53 |
Castlebar |
4,909,545 |
|
54 |
Castleblayney |
2,051,939 |
|
55 |
Cavan |
2,819,914 |
|
56 |
Clonakility |
3,392,402 |
|
57 |
Clones |
135,269 |
|
58 |
Cobh |
1,014,546 |
|
59 |
Dundalk |
20,839,764 |
|
60 |
Dungarvan |
825,735 |
|
61 |
Ennis |
9,322,173 |
|
62 |
Enniscorthy |
1,448,567 |
|
63 |
Fermoy |
626,842 |
|
64 |
Kells |
1,492,616 |
|
65 |
Killarney |
7,486,528 |
|
66 |
Kilrush |
492,191 |
|
67 |
Kinsale |
1,358,096 |
|
68 |
Letterkenny |
3,130,281 |
|
69 |
Listowel |
1,044,902 |
|
70 |
Longford |
8,132,387 |
|
71 |
Macroom |
3,776,642 |
|
72 |
Mallow |
8,655,211 |
|
73 |
Midleton |
4,910,828 |
|
74 |
Monaghan |
5,829,835 |
|
75 |
Naas |
12,117,832 |
|
Town & Borough Councils |
||
|
76 |
Navan |
4,919,521 |
|
77 |
Nenagh |
3,071,709 |
|
78 |
New Ross |
4,874,411 |
|
79 |
Skibbereen |
2,429,245 |
|
80 |
Templemore |
574,255 |
|
81 |
Thurles |
2,523,655 |
|
82 |
Tipperary |
1,422,006 |
|
83 |
Tralee |
4,774,888 |
|
84 |
Trim |
1,771,072 |
|
85 |
Tullamore |
5,277,419 |
|
86 |
Westport |
668,962 |
|
87 |
Wicklow |
3,330,003 |
|
88 |
Youghal |
3,529,284 |
|
SUBTOTAL |
243,938,289 |
|
|
Total |
1,524,615,470 |
As the Minister said in his reply, the circular relates to the criteria set out by the Maastricht Treaty regarding borrowing being limited to 3% of gross domestic product. Section 3.1 of circular letter FIN 03/2009 states that it is most important that expenditure is funded by income received or due within the year. The environment committee held a meeting yesterday which was attended by the city and county managers. They were of the view, as I am after reading the circular, that development levies which were held on account on 31 December 2008 are ring-fenced and not for expenditure. A freeze has been put on this money. The Minister appears to be contradicting that view this afternoon. Will he clarify if local authorities can spend development levies held on account before 1 January 2009? There is a critical sum involved.
In September 2008, I put a parliamentary question to the Minister asking how much money in development levies was being held on account by local authorities. I still await a reply. The Minister said he would forward the figures to me, but they have not been furnished by the Department. The reason I ask this question is that the Comptroller and Auditor General told us at the start of the year that €1.5 billion was being held on account. If two thirds of that money has been spent in 2008, there is approximately €500 million still held on account. The €0.5 billion was paid by developers and people extending and carrying out other works on their homes to get infrastructural expenditure in their communities, be it water systems or a swing in a local playground. Is that money now tied up or can local authorities spend it? What the Minister said this afternoon appears to contradict what the city and county managers told the committee yesterday.
There is a requirement for clarity. The Deputy referred in his question to a prohibition on the spending of development levies. There is no such prohibition. Our intention is to ensure we have as much flexibility as possible. I am conscious of the needs of the local authorities and, indeed, I have spoken to the managers. I understand how difficult the situation is. However, it should be remembered that when we refer to the general Government balance, we are referring to an aggregate. I have spoken to my officials at length about this. What is required is continuing discussion and dialogue between my Department and the various local authorities so they can prioritise certain infrastructural projects.
There are difficulties with certain local authorities — I am aware of each of them — who have accumulated a large amount in development levies. They would like to spend as much of that as they possibly can but under the current rules that might not be possible. That is not to say they can spend nothing; they can spend. The question is how we do that and which infrastructural projects can be prioritised. It is a balancing act. We are dealing with this on a national basis. It is the only way we can deal with it because of the commitments we made under the Maastricht Treaty. We are obliged to do this, and I hope the Deputy understands that. We cannot work it in any other way.
Following the Minister's response this afternoon, I suggest that he clarify this to the city and county managers because their position at the committee meeting yesterday contradicts the Minister's interpretation. Had the Minister been able to answer my parliamentary question last September he might not have been required to take such a sweeping action because he would have known what money was held on account in development levies. For the record, there is a sum of €200 million which the Minister appears to be trying to cover under the circular letter. The sum held in development levies — I can only imagine the amount——
I have them here.
——because the Minister has not provided me with the figures even though I have been asking for them since 2008 — is in excess of the €200 million.
Yes.
Is the Minister saying that if Cork City Council or Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council has development levies held on account, and waiting to be spent on vital projects in local communities, the money can be spent tomorrow morning?
No, I am not saying that. There is no prohibition on it being spent but it requires the council to speak directly to my Department to see if it is possible under the circumstances. I will supply the Deputy with all the details. He asked about county and city councils and the figures are detailed in the reply. There is no blanket ban on these councils spending money. That is simply not the case, although that is what the Deputy implied in the question. It is not true.
If the Minister——
Deputy, we must proceed.
This is a huge issue.
The Deputy will have to find another way to deal with it.
With the indulgence of Deputy Hogan and others, this is a huge issue.
The Deputy is eating into his colleague's time.
The Minister must be very clear on this. He should check the record of the committee meeting yesterday. The county and city managers are on record as having an entirely different interpretation, which is in section 3.1 of a letter sent to them by the Minister. The Minister's words are in black and white and state that they cannot spend this money. The Minister is saying this afternoon that they can. He must issue a statement. He is a fair man for going out onto the plinth to make a comment when it suits him. He needs to go there this afternoon and clarify this.
At the risk of repeating myself, the Deputy states in his question that there is a prohibition on spending of all development levies. That is not the case, there is no such prohibition in place. However, we must comply with the Maastricht criteria and we are doing that through intensive dialogue with the various local authorities. My officials are working intensively on that.
26 Deputy Phil Hogan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views, in the context of funding local government, on a new property tax to allow local government to be more self-financing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25399/09]
In October 2008, as part of budget 2009, the Government announced its intention to introduce a €200 charge on non-principal residences and I have arranged that the legislation necessary to give effect to this measure will be published today. The charge will apply mainly to the owners of residential rental property, holiday homes and vacant properties unless the vacant property is newly-constructed but unsold.
The charge is estimated to raise some €40 million annually and it will be collected and retained by local authorities. It is the first locally-based revenue stream to be made available to local authorities since the abolition of domestic rates over 30 years ago. I consider this to be a very significant development — it will reduce the dependency of local authorities on central funding and it will be a stable income stream, unlike the transaction-based property taxes on which our economy had become unduly dependent. These taxes — property-related stamp duty, capital gains tax and value added tax — are volatile and over-responsive to prevailing economic conditions.
More generally, the Commission on Taxation has been asked to examine our taxation system with particular reference to a number of factors, including the options for future financing of local government. I have no doubt that the commission will consider this matter in depth, including the matter of property taxes generally, and I await its report. The Government will give careful consideration to the commission's report, which will be available in the near future.
I was anxious to elicit whether the Minister was in favour of a universal property tax on principal private residences as well as other residences, but he chose not to answer that question. Given the softening of the ground that is taking place on this matter, would the Minister indicate whether he favours a universal property tax in advance of the review of the programme for Government?
Does the Minister wish to rise to that?
No, I do not. The Deputy knows I am not here to give my personal views. I am speaking as a member of the Government.
Go ahead, we will not stop you.
We are anxious to ensure there is an adequate income stream, particularly at local government level. I am awaiting the deliberations and conclusions of the Commission on Taxation with a certain curiosity. I hope it will broaden the base of local government funding. The most significant aspect of today's legislation, and I have not heard if the Opposition parties welcome it——
The Minister has not published it yet.
It is available and is——
We hear so many announcements that we do not know the details.
It is there and is being published today.
Allow the Minister speak.
The Deputy knows very well what is in the legislation.
I do not.
It has been outlined. The Deputy knows only too well what is in it.
There may be other issues.
It is a €200 charge on non-principal residences which will be collected locally. Due to the abolition of rates 30 years ago, there has been a depletion in revenue streams for local authorities.
I agree with the Minister.
This is historic. It is the first time that we have introduced any form of revenue raising for local authorities since that time.
Has the Minister ever heard of motor tax?
Motor tax is not collected locally. This is important. It was put forward as an idea for local funding but the Deputy must ask himself whether it is the best way of funding local government.
Let us see the legislation.
That is the question. The legislation is available and I ask the Deputy not only to read it, but also to welcome it.
I will decide that.
I now invite the Minister to deal with Question No. 23 in the name of Deputy Joanna Tuffy.
23 Deputy Joanna Tuffy asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the steps he has taken in response to the fall in the number of beaches, bathing areas and marinas with blue flag status from 83 in 2007 to 77 in 2009; if the need for good quality bathing water should be a priority of his Department in view of the fact that it is essential for tourism and public health and safety; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25335/09]
Achieving and maintaining high quality bathing water at designated bathing water sites is a priority for my Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the relevant local authorities, given the important role that our beaches play in attracting tourists and providing recreational opportunities for local people in a safe and clean environment.
The EPA's report on the quality of bathing water in Ireland 2008 noted that the overall quality of bathing water remains high. In areas where bathing waters fail to meet the EU mandatory standards, the EPA actively follows up on these cases and takes the necessary enforcement actions.
The quality of bathing waters at designated bathing water sites is directly affected by the quality of waters flowing into them. I have taken a number of steps to address discharges from municipal and agricultural sources, the two main contributors to water quality problems. In 2007, I introduced the Waste Water Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations which require local authorities to obtain discharge licences from the EPA for wastewater treatment plants. These licences impose emission limits on the discharges, compliance with which is overseen by the EPA. In addition, in March 2009, I revised the nitrates regulations in order to provide for better farmyard management and to strengthen the enforcement provisions of the regulations.
Since 2000, a total of €2.5 billion has been invested in wastewater treatment and collection systems under my Department's water services investment programme. Many of the new schemes provided were in coastal locations and had a direct, positive benefit on water quality in these areas. The Government commitment to the ongoing improvement of water quality is evidenced in the €500 million allocated to the water services investment programme this year. The programme will fund works at a number of the sites where blue flags have been lost. Work is also well advanced on the development of river basin management plans.
The problem with the news about the blue flag beaches is that this year we are going backwards. As I outlined in my question, we went from having 83 blue flags in 2007 to 77 in 2009. As the Minister said, clean beaches are very important for our tourism industry. We can do without such bad news at this time. Not only tourists but Irish families go to beaches at this time of year. This is very important for our economy because there is a significant spin-off in the use of local services, shops and cafes at beaches. This news will not help us at a time when we must do everything we can to stimulate our economy, particularly the economies of coastal areas at this time of year.
I have another question regarding a matter that emerged at the same time, namely, uncollected rubbish at beaches after the June bank holiday weekend. That was further bad news about our beaches. Tourists come to Ireland and many Irish people stay here because of the perception that the country has a good and clean environment, with clean and safe beaches.
This must be given priority. I appreciate what the Minister said about wastewater treatment but there is an element of remoteness in his reply. I want to think that as Minister, Deputy Gormley will play a hands-on role in ensuring we win back blue flags for the beaches that lost them. What kind of monitoring will he do? It is not enough to say, for example, that he is setting aside €500 million and the EPA will do this or that. Will he check on this matter during the year so that next year we might gain more blue flags, winning back the ones we lost without losing any others?
Can we ensure that our beaches are cleaned up by the councils and that they have the necessary staff to do this?
I entirely agree with the Deputy about the tourism benefits of having pristine beaches all over the country. It enhances the quality of life of citizens in this city to have magnificent beaches on our doorstep. It must be said, and the EPA made clear in its report, that there was a significant problem with rainfall when the monitoring was being done last year which accounted for the bad readings. That is inevitable when there are unprecedented volumes of rainfall. Run-off, which comes not only from rivers and riverine inputs but also from elsewhere, leads to bad water quality. It is as simple as that. Those are the inevitable consequences of heavy rainfall. Consider the flash floods in County Donegal yesterday. Donegal has fantastic beaches but if one were to take readings around the area after such heavy rainfall one would find there was a deterioration in the bathing water quality.
I hope we will have a good summer this year, that there will be better readings and that we can regain the blue flags. It must be stated, because I do not believe this was made clear, that there were a number of gains in the matter of blue flags. In 2009, for example, Clogher Head and Greystones gained blue flags and in 2008 Dollymount, Culduff and Morriscastle gained blue flags which they held in 2009.
We are out of time. If the Deputy wishes to comment, she must be very brief.
The Minister mentioned rainfall. Apart from capital investment, are there steps that can be taken in the short term to deal with the matters which affect the quality of bathing water? Can anything be done to ensure that each year we can raise the bar?
If the Deputy is a swimmer, she will know that it is very difficult to deal with rainfall. I go to Seapoint and the Forty Foot but if one is out there after heavy rainfall the water is brown. It is as simple as that and very difficult to treat. I was talking to one of the engineers on Dublin City Council about this. If one goes to any of the Caribbean islands where there are no rivers one sees crystal clear water, but where there are rivers with run-off there will be difficulties such as turbidity and deterioration.
I cannot predict the weather for the summer but I hope that if we have a good August we will have good readings for our water. I am hopeful about that.
Did the Minister receive a note from the tourism board in the Caribbean?
