Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Wednesday, 27 May 1998

Vol. 1 No. 6

Estimates for Public Services, 1998.

Vote 25 - Environment and Local Government (Revised).

I welcome the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, and the Ministers of State, Deputy Molloy and Deputy Dan Wallace. The committee has met to consider the revised Estimate for the Department which amounts to in excess of £1 billion for this year.

I have circulated a proposed timetable for today's meeting. We will make the best use of our time if opening statements are kept as brief as possible and the committee as a whole will then have an opportunity to debate the main issues involved under the subheads. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss my Department's 1998 Estimate with the Select Committee on Environment and Local Government, and I look forward to a constructive discussion and exchange of information. A short briefing note has been prepared for the members of the committee giving details of the overall Estimate and the individual subhead expenditures. The Ministers of State at the Department, Deputy Molloy and Deputy Dan Wallace, and I will be happy to assist the Committee in any way we can during the question and answer session. If more specific information is sought by members that is not readily available we will be glad to communicate with the members subsequently. I will deal with a number of areas as briefly as I can and I will begin with housing and house prices.

Members of the committee will be aware of the dangers and problems stemming from excessive increases in house prices. These arise not just in the housing sector but in the overall management of the economy through the risk of higher inflation and the corresponding threat to wage restraint which is a cornerstone of this and previous Governments' efforts which have led to the economic success we experience.

In advance of Government action on this issue Peter Bacon and Associates were appointed to examine the factors underlying the increase in house prices in recent years. The Bacon report was produced within a tight time frame and the Government responded on 23 April when it was published. The action programme on house prices is a balanced package of measures which consists of a three pronged approach.

First, we intend to increase the potential supply of housing by the provision of more serviced land through the removal of infrastructural constraints, the promotion of increased densities at appropriate locations and in an appropriate manner, the faster release of serviced land for residential development and better market access to the existing housing stock.

The second approach will address factors causing overheating or distortions in the market - including excessive investment demand - and restore better balance between supply and demand. Finally, we are determined to improve the position of prospective first time buyers. I am confident that the measures making up the overall package will do that.

Regarding local authority housing, I am pleased to provide for an increase of £34 million on the local authority housing programme for 1998. This represents an increase of 19 per cent on expenditure in 1997 and demonstrates the Government's commitment to this important social programme. The provision of approximately £214 million will enable local authorities to meet commitments carried forward from previous years and to fund a programme of 3,900 new starts or acquisitions this year. It is important not just to look at local authority starts but also the complementary social housing measures which mean that the housing needs of some 10,000 households will be met in 1998.

The 1998 provision for local authority housing includes £20 million to get the redevelopment of Ballymun under way. This is real evidence of the Government's commitment to improving the housing and economic prospects of an area of Dublin that has regrettably been neglected. The new company, Ballymun Regeneration Ltd., set up by Dublin Corporation, has completed the masterplan for the social and economic regeneration of the area. Detailed work on implementing its many elements will now begin.

On taking up office, it was clear to me that the failure, since 1995, to update the terms and conditions of the various social housing schemes had led to a serious decline in activity. Under the voluntary housing capital assistance scheme, for example, output fell from 613 units in 1995 to 501 in 1996 and 345 in 1997. Decisive action was necessary to restore the effectiveness of social housing programmes including voluntary housing and the shared ownership scheme.

Major improvements to the range of social housing options were announced last November by the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy. These included new maximum levels of assistance to voluntary housing bodies under the capital assistance scheme; these exceed the previous levels by amounts ranging from £5,000 to £15,000 per unit of accommodation. Wider income limits, lower rents, higher unit cost limits and a higher level of ongoing support for voluntary housing were introduced under the rental subsidy scheme. Increases of up to £15,000 per unit of accommodation in the levels of assistance available for voluntary housing schemes on offshore islands were provided for, in addition to a 50 per cent increase in funding for communal facilities in voluntary housing. In many instances, these increases were backdated to 1 July 1997. All of these measures will help to revitalise the social housing schemes as well as providing the opportunity for social housing in locations where it has not previously been attempted.

Regarding roads, the 1990s have seen an impressive level of investment in our road network, taking investment to unprecedented high levels compared with the previous two decades. The 1998 Estimate at over £492 million continues this trend with a 12 per cent increase over 1997 expenditure of around £438 million.

The revised Estimates for 1998 include a total provision of over £288 million for national roads. More than £263 million has been allocated to the National Roads Authority for the construction and improvement of this network. These funds will enable the authority to complete projects such as the River Lee Tunnel and the Arklow and Balbriggan by-passes, and enable progress to continue on major infrastructural projects like the Dunleer/Dundalk motorway and the Cavan and Donegal by-passes. To complement the improvement of the network, over £25 million has also been provided to the authority to carry out maintenance works. The 1998 Estimate represents an increase of 11 per cent over the 1997 expenditure figure of about £260 million.

When I announced the non-national road grant allocations to local authorities in Cork last February, l made it clear that it was no longer acceptable that we were still negotiating around potholes in this era of the Celtic tiger. There is an unequivocal commitment in the Action Programme for the Millennium to increase funding for regional and local roads around the country. The 1998 Estimate for non-national roads shows that this Government has not been found wanting. The figures speak for themselves.

The total non-national road grant allocations in 1998 will amount to nearly £204 million, an increase of £26 million or almost 15 per cent on the 1997 outturn and an increase of £31 million or 18 per cent on the original 1997 allocation figure. This allocation - a record, all time high - means that since 1993, non-national road grants have increased by 165 per cent from just over £77 million.

The grants provision of almost £204 million for 1998 includes over £118 million for the restoration programme or almost £25 million more than was provided in 1997 under this heading. This will enable further significant progress to be made this year and will finance, by the end of 1998, a total of more than 5,200 road schemes, with over 8,400 kilometres of road benefiting. The increased level of funding available this year will allow county councils to carry out almost 90 per cent of their 1999 restoration improvement schemes in 1998, in addition to the 1998 schemes included in their multi-annual programmes. That programme is almost one year ahead. This will significantly accelerate the programme and allow for more rapid progress on the ground.

A good quality environment is part of our national wealth. Maintaining and enhancing this asset is part of our drive to secure prosperity and a better quality of life for everyone. Many of our main economic activities - for example, agriculture and food, fisheries, tourism as well as high quality industry and services -rely on a clean and unpolluted environment. Environmental quality underpins both their operations and associated jobs. In every way, therefore, it makes sense to develop and implement good environmental management strategies.

Education, public debate and easier access to information have all helped raise awareness of environmental pressures, both globally and at local level. However, much still needs to be done to translate this concern into positive action at individual, sectoral and consumer level, to deal with the environmental challenges we face. Central to these additional efforts will be the development of a partnership approach involving all sectors and major groups. Such partnership is one expression of the principle of shared responsibility, where all of us - individual workers and consumers, employers and trade unions, government and economic sectors - play our part in working towards a common goal. This principle can also apply to the protection of our environment and help to create a sense of ownership, personal responsibility and a feeling that we all can contribute to maintaining a high quality environment.

A new provision in the Estimates for 1998 is that of £250,000 for the National Environment Partnership Forum. The establishment of this forum is, as Members know, a major environmental commitment in An Action Programme for the Millennium. Following an intensive period of consultation with interested groups, I am currently analysing the issues raised and intend shortly to finalise proposals for the establishment of the forum. While the detailed terms of reference of the forum and its work programme are still being considered, it is my intention that the forum will have a strong voice in addressing both the Government and the public on crucial aspects of the environment and sustainable development. It will be an effective means of promoting and supporting shared responsibility for environmental quality and will provide an appropriate mechanism for consultation and structured dialogue on issues surrounding the pursuit of sustainable development.

Water and waste water infrastructure is a major capital programme which confers significant short and long-term environmental benefits. At just under £185 million in 1998, investment in the programme is at a record level and is up 13 per cent on last year. Over £150 million will be spent on major public water and sewerage schemes. The programme provides for the commencement of up to 60 major public schemes this year at an estimated cost of £470 million, including the Dublin Bay project - one of the largest construction contracts ever undertaken in the history of the State - Osbertstown sewerage, Galway main drainage and major water supply schemes for Galway and Monaghan. A further 61 schemes will continue construction in 1998, including major water schemes at Buncrana, Leixlip, Sligo, Waterford and Wexford and major sewerage schemes at Cork, Tralee, Drogheda, Dundalk and Navan. About 80 schemes will be advanced through planning to commence construction in later years.

Our rapid and sustained economic growth brings with it demands for more infrastructure, including water and sewerage infrastructure. This year's provision will allow a major increase in the level of activity under the water and sewerage services investment programme and will also provide for significant investment under the rural water programme, the serviced land initiative and in water conservation schemes.

The limited time available does not permit me to touch on many of the other important functions and services for which my Department is responsible. However, I and the Ministers of State will be happy to deal with matters which Members may wish to raise during the course of the meeting. I am confident the 1998 Estimate will enable the services for which my Department and local authorities are responsible to be maintained and built upon, and allow us to take further practical measures to ensure our natural environment is preserved for the benefit of this and future generations.

I assume we are now moving to the subheads.

I wish to take a couple of minutes to criticise the procedure we are using, which is not a criticism of your suggestion, Sir. The procedure was established some time ago and I criticised it while on the Government benches dealing with Estimates. It is a bizarre procedure to segment the Estimate in this way and to expect a number of Deputies from both sides of the House to deal with important matters in 15 minutes slices. This is carrying "committeeitis" to absurd lengths and I regret to say I have no hope that anything worthwhile will be done about it. It would be far better to have the old style Estimate debates in a committee of the whole House, with every Member free to intervene, because there are far wider issues in these Estimates than those that could be encompassed by members of this committee. However, I realise there is no hope that anything will be done about it by the wise heads who rule us in the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, of which I had the doubtful honour of being a member for a while.

There are a number of interesting points in regard to the administrative budget details. Subhead A3 includes provision for the rental of offices throughout the country, including driving test centres. The Estimate has two other references to this wonderful service, one in subhead C.4 which finances expenditure undertaken by the Department centrally, and the other an appropriation-in-aid of £3.75 million from driving test fees. This matter has been raised with the Minister on a number of occasions. What plans, if any, does he have to improve the situation?

By coincidence, I received a telephone call this morning about a constituent who has had two provisional driving licences and now wishes to apply for her third. She was informed she will get her third provisional licence only if she does a test within the next five weeks. She was then informed there is a waiting list of seven months for a driving test. She needs to use her car and has a qualified driver who can accompany her. However, her insurance company informed her that if she does not have a valid provisional driving licence, i.e. the third one which she hopes will be issued to her, she cannot drive her car. She is required to take a test within five weeks but has been told the waiting list is seven months' long. Therefore, she is in a catch-22 situation. If I were to be brutally honest, the only advice I could give her is to buy a bicycle.

That problem has been brewing for quite some time. What, if anything, does the Minister propose to do to improve the position? A number of temporary instructors are employed on a contract basis but they are not meeting the problem. Since various references have been made to the increasing prosperity of our country, we should accept that one of the results of that prosperity is a higher rate of car ownership. Unless we take draconian measures to deal with this problem, traffic will increase exponentially over the coming years.

If the Minister has time at the end of the meeting, or if he has material he could circulate to members, will he give some analysis of expenditure on advertising under subhead A.3? Will he outline the level of uptake of the services provided by ENFO, the environmental information service which is located near here and which I think the Minister intends should have some sub-offices around the country? It would be beneficial to look at those two areas in order to puncture some of the myths about our country. I am sick of hearing people congratulating ourselves on our clean, green country. We do not have a clean, green country - we have a country which in many places is filthy and litter strewn and does not do very much for itself. ENFO's work is part of what is required to make people sensitive to what we are doing to our country.

It is appropriate at this time to ask the Minister to give some further consideration to advertising or promoting one particular part of his Department's activities. We had two referenda last Friday, the results of which pleased almost every Member of the House. Last Friday I encountered a number of people who thought they were entitled to vote but found, for various reasons, they were not. I am aware the Department runs an intensive campaign in November every year to remind people they must register to vote. If people move house between the preparation of one register and the next, they seem to expect that their local authorities will be divinely inspired to move them to the appropriate place on the register. That does not happen. Will the Minister review the advertising methods undertaken to see if more people can be encouraged to register and to make them aware of their responsibility to notify changes of address to their local authorities prior to the compilation of a new register? One often meets baffled would-be voters on polling day who found they were not entitled to vote. It is no consolation to them to find that, in most cases, it is their own fault they are not on the register.

Subhead A.7 refers to various consultancy projects. I will not mimic some of the Minister's party colleagues who, when in Opposition, regarded "consultancy" as a word which required one to wash one's mouth out with carbolic soap. Are all the consultancy projects for the Department of the Environment and Local Government included under this subhead or are consultancy expenditures also included under other headings?

In regard to the timetable, the Chair is in the committee's hands. I welcome interventions from all Members in this debate.

The Minister of State may wish to address the issue of driver testing; I will respond to the other queries after him.

I have answered parliamentary questions on the very unsatisfactory situation in regard to driver testing and the increased backlog and have outlined some of the statistics to the House. A number of factors have contributed to this including a significant rise in the level of applications for tests. The engagement of additional driver testers on a contract basis to deal with the backlog has been delayed because of difficulties with the testers' union and that has certainly not helped matters. However, I am confident these difficulties will be resolved shortly. A new productivity deal with the union should produce a substantial package of additional tests, allow the hiring of contract testers and the engagement of additional permanent testers. In the meantime, Saturday testing will continue in order to maintain maximum output from the present core of testers and facilitate the public as much as possible.

Special arrangements are made for those requiring driving tests for a specific purpose, such as employment, in order that they can be facilitated at an earlier stage. Such an applicant usually receives a test appointment within a period of ten weeks. I expect waiting times for tests to reduce rapidly once agreement is achieved with the testers' union and I understand that negotiators and the union are close to agreement.

The Bacon report consultancy fee was paid under subhead B1.18 - grants in respect of housing research.

Does the funding for the new social housing policy unit announced by the Minister some months ago also come under subheading B1.18?

Yes, I think so.

Has the Minister any idea of the total funds allocated to that body for the duration of this year?

Approximately £60,000 has been allocated out of research funds for the social housing policy unit in the IPA.

Is that for the remainder of the current year?

Yes, that is the figure contained in the Estimates for 1998.

We are now considering subheads B.1 to B.4.

The housing issue is obviously a key aspect of social policy. There is currently a great deal of dissatisfaction with all aspects of the housing market. We on this side of the House welcome some of the initiatives taken by the Government in response to the Bacon report. However, I take the Minister to task in regard to his comments on the tight timeframe involved. It took this Government more than ten months to respond to the housing crisis. I consistently made the point that a much swifter response was required. Throughout that ten month period, we have witnessed a further escalation in house prices. I disagree with the minister's use of the term 'tight timeframe'. Some of the policy initiatives will have a beneficial effect but there will be disadvantages in rented accommodation. We are already witnessing worrying price increases in this area.

All local authorities face a crisis in local authority and social housing. Since the last housing Estimate, completed in 1996, figures compiled by Fine Gael reveal a 30 per cent increase in the number of persons on local authority housing lists during the past two and half to three years. It makes a mockery of the housing assessment process that we simply assess this area every three years. The Government is failing to respond to the crisis in local authority housing. Local authority members, and politicians on all sides of this House, are well aware that, on a week to week basis, the local authority housing crisis is having devastating effects on local communities. I have no doubt that the figures compiled by my party will be reinforced by the housing assessment due in March 1999.

While the Minister may boast about the increase of £34 million in the total Estimate for local authority housing, this is not good enough and represents a failure to respond to the crisis. The response given to the Bacon report affects people who can afford to purchase their own homes. However, the vast bulk of people on local authority housing lists, particularly in Dublin, have no chance of being part of the private housing market. The increase, albeit a welcome one, is simply not sufficient to respond to the crisis in the housing market.

Subhead B.1.1 refers to the Ballymun initiative; this decision was taken by the previous Government and funding of £20 million has now been put in place to initiate the regeneration project. What are the Minister's plans for the completion of the master plan scheme and will he outline the additional resources which will be allocated under this subhead in the future? The total cost of the scheme has been estimated at £190 million.

Subhead B.1.3 refers to extensions to local authority dwellings. This is something which could be used in an imaginative way to address the problem of overcrowding occurring in local authority housing. However, the sum of £1.75 million is a paltry one in 1998. Is the Minister aware of the number of applications which have been received from local authorities in this regard in the past 12 months?

I recently raised the issue of subhead B.1.5, which relates to the remedial works programme, in the Dáil. I note the Minister's intention to spend just over £10 million under this subhead in 1998. Much of the housing stock built in the 1960s and early 1970s is of a substandard nature, particularly the sprawl of local authority housing in the west of the city, Many of the houses are not of comparable quality to those built in the 1980s and later. Greater emphasis should be put on investment in remedial works. Many local authorities wish to increase the level of service provided to local authority housing estates but are unable to do so because of the nature of some of the estates. Will the Minister outline the number of applications received from local authorities in this regard?

Subhead B.1.7 refers to estate improvement programmes. Ireland is completely out of kilter with the European model in this area. If one examines housing policy in recent years, particularly in Britain, one can see there has been a re-focusing of much local authority and central Government spending in order to encourage estates to help themselves by putting management organisations in place. Some of the estates in question are very deprived and drug use is rampant in many of them. Under this subhead, we should be seeking the allocation of a realistic amount of funding which would give deprived communities some sense of ownership and power.

The Minister outlined a figure of £1.5 million for the estate improvement programme; that figure was decided on by the Cabinet sub-committee of which the Minister is not a Member. How many times has that sub-committee met and what input has the Minister had into its decisions, specifically in regard to this subhead? Is the sum of £1.5 million not a derisory one given the importance the Government attaches to tackling the drugs crisis? The Minister cannot have an effective input into this area when he is not a Member of the sub-committee and that is reflected quite evidently in the lack of funding allocated to estate improvement programmes. Many communities which have been let down by past Governments will view this subhead with great disappointment.

Subhead B.1.10 relates to the provision of traveller accommodation for which funding of £11 million has been outlined. The Minister will be aware that it is Fine Gael's intention to support the provisions of the legislation on traveller accommodation when it comes before the House. Given the changes proposed in that legislation and the ability of county managers to override local authority decisions, will we not see a more extended programme in the area of traveller accommodation? Has the Minister not underestimated the amount of revenue required to meet those new programmes? The Minister will be aware that, within the legislation, there are powers to radically increase the traveller accommodation programme in each of the local authority areas. We will hopefully witness, for the first time, a co-ordinated effort to put accommodation programmes in place. Will the Minister provide the financial resources required to deal effectively with this?

Subhead B.1.14 relates to the recoupment of expenditure incurred by local authorities in relation to accommodation for homeless persons. Why is it the case that the Estimate outlined for 1998 is £500,000 less than that for 1997 when we are witnessing an increase in the level of homelessness, as evidenced by the reports of Focus Ireland and others?

As the Deputy's questions were quite detailed, does the Minister wish to reply to them at this stage or does he wish to take additional questions from other Deputies?

Our questions may be related to some of those asked already.

Subhead B.1. 2 contains a reduced allocation for 1998. That surprises me somewhat as the scheme has certainly been very successful in County Clare. The costs involved in carrying out necessary improvements may sometimes run to a figure which is beyond Department guidelines. Local authorities are increasingly finding that the cost of providing local authority housing is much higher than it previously was. I would have thought the scheme outlined under B.1.2 was a particularly imaginative one which had worked very well and which should be promoted. I believe that funding in this area could be extended profitably.

Subhead B.1.4 refers to the provision of sites for private housing. I welcome the substantial increase in funding under that subhead but it may be necessary to encourage local authorities to adopt a more proactive role in regard to properties in their possession which are suitable for housing purposes. In some instances, local authorities do not appear to be encouraging people to access these properties. This is an area in which substantial progress could be made.

In regard to the subheads which deal with traveller accommodation, I agree with many of the comments made by Deputy Hayes. However, I am concerned that we may not be taking full account of local authorities' history in this area. From my experiences in County Clare, I am aware that traveller group housing has been relatively difficult to police. What is the cost nationally of building and rebuilding group housing projects? I could show two which are no longer habitable, having been wrecked on a number of occasions. I am concerned that we do not take full cognisance of our negative experiences in this area. I do not believe local authorities have the resources to manage traveller housing at any level. Perhaps we should consider establishing a national agency to do it all. Doubtless we will have an opportunity to address this aspect when we debate the forthcoming legislation.

Subhead B2.3 refers to grants for home improvements. A small sum is provided, which is due under the terminated scheme. However, it would be remiss to allow three Ministers to escape without having the question put to them regarding a return of house reconstruction grants at some stage.

When new local authority estates are built I understand a relatively small sum is provided for ancillary works. However, these exclude playgrounds or facilities for children on the estate, which is a pity. I know from my experience in County Clare that increasing numbers of residents on local authority estates are taking pride in their estates and working on them. For example, many of them have estate tidy towns committees. It is an area of substantial potential and there are opportunities for the Department to become actively involved.

I welcome the allocation of £20 million for the Ballymun redevelopment scheme. Deputy Noel Ahern will have more to say about it. However, it is good to see financial provision for the project. I understand that when the announcement was made by the previous Government in a fanfare of publicity, no price tag was put on the project. It is good that the Government is to provide £20 million. The project will benefit everybody on the north side of Dublin, especially the children of my constituents who live in Ballymun.

I welcome the remedial works scheme, which has been in operation for some time. We are seeing the results of it throughout the city of Dublin and elsewhere. Darndale, located in my constituency, has benefited, although it took some time to have all the phases implemented over ten years. Many other housing estates are queuing to avail of remedial works and precinct improvement. I support the scheme and hope it will flourish in the future and will be supported by the Department.

On the question of local authority housing, and speaking from my perspective in the Dublin city area, I welcome the 19 per cent increase in funding. However, there are problems in the corporation area of the greater Dublin metropolis. Dublin Corporation finds it difficult to build and purchase local authority houses due to the lack of sites and escalating house prices. Does the Minister see a role in producing a common housing list between all the local authorities in Dublin or will he leave the matter to them? Given the disadvantages we experience in the Corporation area, there is a great need for such a list.

Focus Ireland recently made a presentation to the committee. Sister Stanislaus Kennedy dealt with the question of an assessment of homelessness and expressed the view that our statistics are not up to scratch and that we do not know the full extent of the problem. What provisions are being made to ensure that we have an adequate assessment of homelessness, including reliable statistics on the matter?

Many different agencies and various Departments deal with housing. For example, local authority housing, bed and breakfast accommodation, hostels and voluntary social housing cross at least three Departments. Supplementary welfare, which is paid in respect of hostels and bed and breakfast accommodation, is the responsibly of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, while the provision of hostels is covered by the health boards in many cases. Will the Minister support the establishment of an integrated plan on housing to be dealt with by one Department, given the conflicting objectives between Departments? For example, vast amounts of supplementary welfare payments are provided to house people in private rented accommodation, which is a cause of concern for those involved in politics and in the homeless sector generally. In addition, the provision of bed and breakfast accommodation is most unsatisfactory.

The Minister commented on the Bacon report and the attempts to solve the Dublin housing crisis and referred to the recent departmental circular to the Dublin local authorities to provide for increased residential densities within their development plans. Many of the local authorities have already made these provisions and are attempting to increase densities, especially in built up areas. However, this is meeting with huge resistance from the public, not because of a lack of understanding of the housing crisis or failure to see the need for more economic use of services, facilities, infrastructure and so on, but solely because of the increased traffic congestion which it sees as inevitable. The public cannot be blamed for this.

The committee recently discussed the huge increase in the number of appeals to An Bord Pleanála. The public is fighting back. Under the current development plan for my county it is proposed that serviced land and land for which the Minister's Department has provided £1.5 million for drainage will not be zoned. The land is serviced and partially developed in respect of all infrastructural requirements except for public transport. Given this, all the measures set out in the circular to the Dublin local authorities are doomed to failure unless the policy of increased residential densities goes hand in hand with increased public transport. Appeals will become bogged down with An Bord Pleanála, serviced land will lie fallow, housing prices will continue to escalate and traffic circulation will continue to disimprove because people will continue to buy houses in surrounding counties. Will the Minister take these points on board? While a resolution of the problem is not entirely in his hands I am sure he realises that land use and transport policies are linked.

Subhead B1.16 refers to the shared ownership scheme. This measure will be of increasing importance in solving the housing problem in Dublin. It is now targeted at those who were perhaps not the original target group. The people who are seeking to avail of this provision would have traditionally bought their own homes but are unable to do so now, despite their increased incomes, because of the huge increase in house prices. It is now the only housing option available for many people, given the huge waiting lists for council houses.

I welcome the increase in the income limit from £15,000 to £20,000 which opens it up to more people. I ask the Minister to keep it under constant review to ensure that people's needs are met. The maximum loan which can be obtained under that scheme is only £75,000. In South County Dublin, with which I am most familiar, one cannot buy a house for 50 per cent more than that. Placing limits on the amount that can be borrowed could render the entire scheme useless. I ask the Minister to keep that under review, if possible.

Subhead B.1.12 deals with the maintenance of halting sites. I rejoiced when I read the Minister's recent statement of his intention to increase the allocation for the maintenance of halting sites. However, this is a paltry increase of approximately £7,000 for all local authorities. There are 20 halting sites planned in my county. We are spending thousands of pounds trying to maintain one halting site. Maintenance of these sites is a black hole. Local authorities are spending their budgets on maintenance within the first two or three months of the year and then they have to walk away from it for the rest of the year. The public's resistance to the building of halting sites is increased when it sees the state in which they are kept. I appreciate that a lot of money is put into the initial building of halting sites but a sustained system of maintenance is required to maintain that standard. If we want to encourage the public to accept the programme of halting sites, we must be able to give them guarantees that we will maintain them. We cannot do that at present and that is one of the reasons the halting site programme is going nowhere.

I am horrified that the provision for disabled persons, under subhead B.2.2, has been reduced from £5.2 million to £4.75 million, particularly during this Celtic tiger period. Local authorities are assessing applicants for these grants in one year and then telling them they will get the money the following year. In other words, their entire budget is used by March of any one year. The decrease in the provision means applicants will be left waiting for two years. In many circumstances these grants are only availed of in an emergency. People can wait for some services but not for these services. Many disabled people make personal contributions and do not look for such grants unless they are extremely badly needed. The State should fulfil its obligation in this area. Disabled people have suffered despite the Celtic tiger and the fact that the rest of us are doing better. They are being left behind. I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision in this regard.

I will not comment on matters already covered by Deputy Olivia Mitchell and Deputy Hayes, but I want to mention two things in the Minister's speech. The first is the Minister's stated intention to increase the potential supply of housing by providing more serviced lands through the removal of infrastructural constraints. I know the Minister has in mind the development of public private partnerships, among other things, to deal with that problem. We will encourage and assist him as much as possible in developing initiatives in that important area. We should all be pleased to note that a number of private sector bodies, including IBEC, are anxious to develop working programmes in those areas.

The second point is the Minister's reference to the promotion of increased densities at appropriate locations. I agree with the points made by Deputy Olivia Mitchell in this regard. However, there is another element which I want to bring to the Minister's attention. We have a number of common problems in all our cities and major towns, including traffic congestion. We have an appalling traffic congestion problem in Dublin and serious traffic problems in Cork, Galway, Waterford, Sligo and all our cities and major towns. Another common problem is that their central areas are in need of redevelopment. Unfortunately, the focus always seems to be to earmark prime sites in city centres or in the centres of large towns for commercial development. We have seen that in Dublin. The Minister should do whatever he can to change that emphasis.

Instead of building large housing estates on the periphery of Dublin, for example, and concentrating commercial development in the centre, we should do it the other way around. The way we do it now means that every day large numbers of people must come from the housing estates on the periphery into the commercial developments in the centre to work and then go back out again in the evening. This adds to our traffic congestion problems. If we put more emphasis on residential development in the central areas and commercial development on the periphery, we would begin to create a contra-flow of traffic. We would get a better result in terms of traffic congestion and the efficiency of infrastructure and public transport use.

The density issue is another important part of that. Deputy Olivia Mitchell has reservations about high densities and has related the matter directly to quality which is, undoubtedly, a proper consideration. Unless we begin that process, we will reinforce and make worse our traffic congestion problems. For as long as we experience economic growth at the type of rates we are having now, then natural market development will create more suburbs on the periphery and more commercial development in the centre, which is an entirely undesirable development.

I note there is a reduction of £0.75 million in the provision for bathrooms in local authority housing under subhead B.1.6. I cannot imagine there is a reduction in demand. If we take B.1.5 and B.1.6 together, there is still a reduction of £0.75 million in those two schemes. Perhaps the Minister could tell me what evidence he has of a reduction in demand for such remedial works and the provision of bathrooms in local authority housing. We all have little anecdotes, but there is one group of ten houses in my constituency where the local authority has been extremely creative for a period of years in finding an engineer to survey the work because it does not have the money to do it. It will keep finding difficulties in getting an engineer to look at this group of town houses which are in urgent need of expenditure. There is no great joy for my ten constituency families in these two subheads this year.

As regards the estate improvement programme under subhead B.1.7, perhaps the Minister could be a little more muscular in his approach to encouraging local authorities to act on that. Subhead B.1.7 is part of the initiative to combat drug abuse. There is a feeling, rightly or wrongly, among residents' associations in many local authority estates that their local authorities have estate management programmes. That may be what is contemplated under subhead B.1.17. There is a fund of goodwill and energy among residents' associations to make improvements in their estates, which are badly needed in some cases. Even the better planned estates, where there are reasonably large recreation areas and green spaces, look dreadful if they are not properly maintained. Many residents' associations have the energy and drive to act, but do not have the funding. A little pump-priming by the local authority could substantially help to improve the appearance and amenity of those estates. The Minister might be a little more muscular in his approach to getting local authorities to act in this regard.

My colleagues spoke about traveller accommodation about which I will say no more. It is a vexed issue and we will have the opportunity quite soon to talk on an important Bill. I wish the Minister well with what he proposes to do in that Bill. There have been enough indications already of problems. NIMBY is alive and well as regards that particular issue.

I congratulate the Minister on making a slight increase in the provision under subhead B.2.4. for the renewal and repair of thatched roofs. There is a fair amount of pent up demand behind it and by providing a little less than £0.5 million we are not doing a great deal about it. If the Minister could find some leeway under other subheads, he would get a lot of kudos for going a little more in this area because to repair a thatched roof these days is extremely expensive. There are several notable thatched houses in the Minister's constituency and very interesting ones in mine. There is a fairly high density of interesting structures with thatched roofs in County Wexford and there are others elsewhere which are worth keeping. It is a pity to see a thatched roof being replaced by any other type of roof but one cannot blame people for doing so because the cost becomes prohibitive.

A few Members expressed concern about density on which I have mixed views. Sometimes we are nervous of people living in the wilds of County Wicklow or County Kildare telling us we should live in little boxes in Dublin. There is no doubt that we can increase the density in Dublin. By increasing the density, it will not mean more commuters taking up more road space. If there is a higher density, it will provide the type of critical mass to allow us to provide the infrastructure for proper public transport, etc. Increasing the density, while doing nothing about roads or public transport, will mean more cars coming into the city. Increasing the density as a solution to housing will create more problems, but if we look at it in an overall context it could allow us to improve matters.

Despite the money being provided for housing, there are many problems. Those in the homeless category, most of whom are genuine, face new problems each day. While I accept the refugee and other problems are outside the remit of the Minister's Department, all housing requests should be dealt with by the one Department, as another speaker mentioned. There is a view that the Department of the Environment and Local Government is against this. It does not make sense that somebody in need of housing in Dublin must go to the community welfare officer if they seek private rented accommodation or to the local authority if they want local authority housing. The system has broken down and is in a mess. It was put in place only ten years ago and we could not have foreseen the way it would take off. The larger the monster grows, the more difficult it become to dismantle it.

Interdepartmental committees have worked on this problem across different Governments, yet the monster is becoming larger and the problem becomes more difficult to deal with. However, somebody must bite the bullet and sort it out. We talk about one stop shops for other services, but we need one place where people may go for housing from where they will be directed to a local authority or to private rented accommodation. The belief is the Department is the stumbling block. The Minister might comment on that.

Ballymun was mentioned and we welcome what is happening there. Like everything else, it is easy to make a decision but problems arise when implementing it. I wish all local politicians and political parties would play ball and try to seize this as an opportunity to do something positive and to put right many of the problems in Ballymun. Sadly, some people are stirring up trouble as usual for petty short-term gains and are upsetting people who live in communities around Ballymun.

Shared ownership was mentioned. One aspect relates to using housing stock. I will not start to talk about constituency boundaries but my new constituency will be a three seater one with practically the same boundary as ten year years ago when it was a four seater constituency. The same number of houses are in the constituency but 25 per cent or 30 per cent of the population has left.

The population in certain pockets of my area is elderly. The corporation has a scheme, which it does not encourage or drive too much, where a person may sell their house back to it or on the private market, make a contribution and get a senior citizen flat. The corporation operates this scheme on occasions but it is a little apologetic about it and makes a big deal. With space for new houses at a premium, such a scheme should be driven. There are many houses in my area, without pinpointing a road or suburb, in which there may have been three or four votes ten years ago but which was reduced to two and then to one, that of the widow. Sooner or later the house will be recycled, so to speak, but things could be speeded up. We could use those houses for a family unit if satisfactory senior citizen accommodation was provided. While such a scheme exists, the local authority and the Department need to give it a spurt to drive it on.

Our tenants have been inclined to talk too much about entitlements -I refer to traveller accommodation and local authority estates - and do little in return. I may have been critical of the Department a few years ago when I thought it was being a little obstructionist in talking about estate management but not providing funds to local authorities when they came up with estate management plans, which need to be driven more. It is all about the rights of the tenant but there is very little about the responsibilities of the tenant. In my area there is a fabulous new halting site which was opened six or eight months ago and still looks very well. I am sure it will continue to look very well inside but the road leading up to it is appalling. Most of these sites, both the legal and illegal ones, are built on the road that is the boundary between city and county.

The authorities are nearly as bad as the people who seek out the unofficial sites. The argument is now about who, if anybody, cleans the road? Since nobody has cleaned it for the past 40 years, no one will do it now. However, it damages the appearance of the halting site which is grand inside. It is not fair to those inside or outside. Somebody should be encouraged to clean the road; it does not all have to be done by local authority payroll staff. There should be a greater effort to make flat dwellers and those on halting sites aware of their responsibilities to keep not just their own doorsteps clean but their surrounding areas also. It is all part of estate management but it is going very slowly. Some local activists see estate management as a case of "What's in it for me?" and "When will we get control of the budget?", rather than asking "What responsibilities does it place on me?"

Time is moving on. It strikes me that we are in a low gear and there is no fear that we will get a speeding ticket. I am anxious to move on to subheads C1 to C5 as soon as the Minister has replied.

Many questions have been raised and I am grateful to the Members for raising them. I will respond as best I can.

The total provision for housing in 1998 is £453 million. This represents an increase of £91 million or 25 per cent on the 1997 provision of £362 million. The provision of £240 million for the local authority housing programme has increased by £35 million or 19 per cent on the 1997 outturn. If we look back a few years we can see it is very close to the total figure of £42 million provided in 1992. Some £20 million has been allocated to Ballymun for redevelopment and I will come back to that matter.

The provision of £11 million for traveller accommodation in 1998 represents an increase of 16 per cent on the 1997 outturn of £9.5 million. The provision of more than £15 million for the voluntary housing capital assistance scheme in 1998 represents an increase of 81 per cent on the 1997 outturn of £8.3 million. The reason for the low outturn in 1997 was that the terms and conditions of the scheme had not been updated since 1995 and had fallen completely out of line with house building costs and prices. Increased levels of activity are expected as a result of the new maximum levels of assistance which exceeded the previous levels by amounts ranging from £5,000 to £15,000 per unit of accommodation. I announced those last November.

The provision for remedial works has been maintained at £19 million. The provision of £5 million for the task force for the elderly represents an increase of 21 per cent on the outturn for 1997 of £4.132 million. The local authority housing programme, together with output from the complimentary social housing measures and vacancies occurring in the existing local authority housing stock, will enable the needs of just over 10,000 households to be catered for in 1998. The figure for 1997 was 9,300. That is a fairly clear indication of the Government's commitment to housing. We have devoted a substantial percentage of the resources available to us for increases across the board in the housing area.

Deputy Hayes continues to make the point that ten months was too long a delay for the Government to respond to the house prices crisis. What response was there was from his own party when it was in Government before we came into office last July? In October and November 1997 I advertised for consultants to undertake the study which subsequently resulted in Dr. Bacon being appointed. I had to give four months for that study which was a very short period of time in which to ask him to do it. When we received the Bacon report we wasted no time in deciding what action we would take. It was quite unique in terms of consultants reporting to Government. One could search a long time before one would find any consultant's report that had action taken on it so quickly. I was determined that would be done because I was very conscious of the situation, as was clear from the matters we put into the programme for Government. We have taken a great deal of action in that area. Maybe that is the last time we will hear about that matter from Deputy Hayes. His argument does not stand up.

Tell that to the young couples.

He did absolutely nothing about it when his party was in Government. His colleague beside him sat in that Government but did nothing about it. It is embarrassing for him to have to sit there and listen to that.

The Minister of State can send that letter to the young couples. I am sure they would be delighted to hear that.

That is not the robust Deputy Molloy we used to know.

The general perception is that this Government responded very quickly and effectively. I hope we will see the effect of that in time.

I was asked where the funding was coming from for the IPA. The heading is B1.17. As regards Ballymun, a Deputy asked about the total cost. It is important to point out that no funding was provided for the redevelopment or regeneration of the Ballymun project by the outgoing Government. We have provided a fairly substantial sum of £20 million in this year's Estimates, which I hope will be expended.

The master plan projects the total cost of all elements of the plan for the regeneration of Ballymun at £261 million. The core element of this is the £183 million cost for the demolition of the flats including the four-storey blocks and replacement housing. The additional cost will, I expect, relate to the provision of new roads, pavements, road realignment, diversion of services, undergrounding of electric cables, provision of new services, landscaping works, parks, play areas, community buildings, design fees and other costs involved that I may not have mentioned.

The Ballymun project is a ten year one. The Government is committed to provide the funding over that period to ensure its completion. I recently visited Ballymun and met the committee that is doing excellent work there. There is great co-operation between the company, Dublin Corporation and the tenants who are actively involved. It is an excellent and worthwhile project which is progressing satisfactorily. The Government is committed to funding it.

There was reference to the moneys provided under the sub-head B1.3 for the extension to local authority dwellings occupied by applicants on local authority waiting lists. The sub-programme was introduced in 1995 to provide capital funds for local authorities to cover the cost of building an extension to a local authority house in order to meet the accommodation needs of a household that had been assessed and accepted as being in need of re-housing under section 9 of the Housing Act, 1988, particularly on the grounds of overcrowding.

The objective is to enable a local authority to extend the existing accommodation, if that is the preferred option, of the approved housing applicants, rather than providing them with a new dwelling. The scheme is not a refurbishment scheme for existing local authority stock and it applies only to individual housing units. It is very much driven by the desire of the applicants who want to continue to live on in the area with a suitable refurbishment to the house.

There is a problem in the Dublin area because in many cases there is not room on the site for extensions that might be required. I understand that might be a limiting factor with regard to the effectiveness of that scheme in certain parts of Dublin at any rate. The guideline limit for reference to the Department of the Environment is £20,000 and there is the extra amount of £25,000 for offshore islands. The full cost of the work is met by the housing authority from the capital allocation for the scheme on certification by the authority to the Department that the work has been carried out in accordance with the terms of the scheme.

A number of Deputies referred to local authority housing remedial works under subhead B.1.5. This scheme was introduced in 1984 to assist local authorities to undertake major structural works on existing houses, many of which were built prior to 1940, where it was felt this was required. Subsequent to the introduction of the scheme, it was extended to include rundown urban estates and, in particular, inner city flat complexes.

The scheme is funded by way of executive grants and through the use of the capital proportion of the proceeds of local authority house sales. The scheme is operating very successfully and, in addition to the executive funding, local authority capital receipts of £8.5 million are being expended on this service. The total amount being expended in the current year is estimated at £19.24 million. The Estimate outlines a cost of £10 million but the figure increases when one adds in non-voted capital.

Subhead B.1.7 refers to the estate improvement programme. This scheme represents a specific response to a recommendation in the first report of the ministerial task force on measures to reduce the demand for drugs. The task force made many recommendations, one of which related to estate improvements. The Department responded to that and will be happy to respond to future requests and suggestions from the task force in regard to any similar matters which arise in the housing area.

Does this mean grants will be directed at the management of estates in the areas worst afflicted by the drugs crisis?

The purpose of the programme is to assist local authorities to tackle environmental and related problems in severely rundown housing estates and flat complexes in certain disadvantaged urban areas, thereby enhancing the living environment for tenants. These areas are generally categorised by serious problems of antisocial behaviour, namely, illegal drug activity, crime, vandalism. There is also litter, graffiti, high levels of unemployment, family breakdown and poverty. These estates would not normally qualify under the remedial works scheme as the condition of the dwellings is basically sound. The scheme attempts to uplift the environment of a particular area and that may explain why the sum is quite low. Under the scheme a sum of £1.25 million has been allocated to Dublin Corporation, £250,000 to Cork Corporation, £250,000 to Limerick Corporation, £500,000 to Fingal County Council and £750,000 to South Dublin County Council.

I am pleased at Deputies' indication of cross-party agreement on the proposed traveller legislation, originally initiated during Deputy McManus's term as Minister of State at the Department of the Environment. The legislation has been adopted by this Government with some minor amendments.

I accept the point about the need to ensure adequate maintenance of facilities provided for the travelling community and substantial sums are being spent on that. A central part of the funds allocated in this area will be devoted to repairing existing facilities. It is important that where investment has been made, further investment should also be made, if it is deemed necessary to ensure people have satisfactory living conditions.

I do not consider a halting site to be an ideal place to rear children although it is the preferred option of many travellers. My preference would be for more travellers to opt to live in conventional housing. However, the Government is responding to travellers' wishes and desires. Some travellers prefer to live in conventional housing while others opt to live in halting sites; that has something to do with their culture of mobility and we must respect that. I look forward to the day when all travellers will live in conventional housing but the Government will not force that situation. The costs of providing halting sites and local authority housing are quite similar.

We estimate that it will take up to 12 months for local authorities to begin to implement their responsibilities under the legislation and for the five year plans to be adopted in each local authority area. Senators requested an extension of the time for consultation on these matters. Although reluctant to do so, I responded to those requests as consultation is an important aspect of this process.

Is sufficient funding available?

Yes, adequate funds are available. I would welcome requests for additional funding in this area as I am anxious to see as much progress as possible being made. My big fear is that sufficient proposals will not be forthcoming from local authorities.

Deputy Killeen inquired about revised limits. Deputies can rest assured that all limits will be continuously reviewed. Even though inflation is happily not at the level it was some years ago, it is still important to keep income and grant limits under review. We are all aware of what happened in the voluntary housing programme where activity fell away because of the failure to increase limits in line with costs and general trends in the housing market.

What about grants to disabled persons?

I introduced the scheme of grants to disabled persons in 1971 and have a particular interest in it. I am delighted with the improvements and extensions which have been made to the scheme since then although I am not happy with the level of approvals under the scheme or the length of time it takes to receive approval. Neither am I happy with the grant which is available as costs have increased. My Department is currently involved in discussions with the Department of Finance on this scheme and a number of others in the area of home improvement, including one in regard to thatched houses. The thatched house scheme will not use up a great deal of funding.

Does the Minister envisage the disabled persons' grant being increased in the current year?

I hope the matter will be finalised prior to next year's Estimates being drawn up.

It is the case that the backlog——

It is difficult to answer those points because the Deputy will question me in the House about when it will be increased. If there is not an increase, I will leave myself open to that, but I am also anxious to ensure that it and the grant level are increased to reasonable figures.

I thank the Minister.

I am conscious of the time factor. If I do not respond to other matters raised, I will reply by letter.

The issue of Focus Ireland and statistics regarding the level of homelessness was raised. I am happy to put in place any improvements regarding the gathering of statistics. There is close liaison with the voluntary housing agencies in terms of trying to get an accurate picture of the real level of homelessness. Given the high level of co-operation, it is surprising at times that figures are used which do not have any basis and which have not been mentioned in any of the discussions with different organisations. I favour a position where everybody agrees on the exact level of homelessness. If it is much higher than the official estimate, I would be happy to have the correct figure

I have a difficulty in this area because I do not have responsibility for children. A different Department deals with that aspect. The Housing Acts contain measures regarding the provision of emergency housing. Nobody should be homeless to the extent that they are on the streets. Under the emergency measures, local authorities can recoup from the Department the cost of providing bed and breakfast accommodation. For example, asylum seekers avail of this extensively. The amount of money spent in this area has increased substantially because of the current high number of asylum seekers.

This is an example of the services available to people who require emergency accommodation. It is available to everybody and it is a source of great pain and anguish that people choose to live on the streets when there is no need to do so. They could avail of these facilities. I hope the Deputies accept the Department is anxious to secure as much co-operation and agreement as possible regarding statistics. The Department will take whatever appropriate action it can to ensure there is no genuine homelessness. However, there will always be cases where individuals make choices. We cannot force people into hostels or overnight accommodation if they do not wish to avail of them.

Deputy Dukes raised the issue of bathrooms. In 1997, the provision for bathrooms in local authority housing was £2 million. However, only £1.259 million was used. The figures available suggest that on 31 December last, 1,033 local authority dwellings lacked bathroom facilities. Of that figure, 850 bathrooms are being provided under the ongoing remedial works scheme. To date, the occupants of 115 dwellings have refused the provision of bathroom facilities. This covers 965 of the total number of 1,033 dwellings without facilities so almost all the bathrooms have been provided. All the money allocated last year was not used.

How many bathrooms have been provided?

A total of 850 bathrooms are being provided under the ongoing remedial works scheme. Local authority dwellings without a bathroom will be covered under the applications submitted for remedial works. A total of 115 occupants have refused the provision of bathrooms. Therefore, only a small number remains. If the Deputy is aware of individual cases, the local authorities will be glad to take up the matter.

The Minister will deal with matters relating to density and also the public private partnership for the provision of services.

Up to 15 minutes have been allocated at the end of the discussion so I will deal with queries at that stage rather than delay the proceedings now.

We will move onto subheads C1 to C5 which relate to roads.

I recently received some information from the National Roads Authority in relation to the reallocation of £26 million from other parts of the transport operational programme to the infrastructural programme relating to roads. Following the mid-term review, have these reallocations been included where relevant in the provisions for 1998?

I note the Minister's point about the impressive level of investment in the roads network. Undoubtedly, there has been an acceleration. However, is the Minister in a position to give an overview of the needs that exist? I have travelled extensively round the country in recent months and the Minister is aware that in general there is serious congestion where trunk routes pass through a town. Examples include Loughrea, Mitchelstown, Fermoy, Castleisland, with which the Chairman is familiar, Nenagh and others. There is serious congestion in any location where a major trunk road passes through a town.

I am disappointed the Deputy did not mention Kinnegad.

I wish it was not necessary to mention it.

The problem is that Kinnegad has been overlooked by everybody.

I hope that Kildare will be soon omitted from the list, although that means I will be living close to a building site for the next three years because the new motorway will pass within half a mile of my house. However, where trunk routes pass through a town there is enormous congestion on Fridays and substantial congestion on Sunday evenings. There is a varying level of congestion and always a good deal of inconvenience at any time of the day. I drive to Limerick frequently and there is always a problem in Nenagh. In all the examples I mentioned by-passes of the towns are required.

Undoubtedly, there has been a major improvement in the quality of the major trunk routes in recent years. However, there is the difficult and occasionally dangerous position of a lengthy stretch of high quality single or dual carriageway leading into a different stretch. There is a notorious stretch of the Galway road where many commemorative crosses have been placed. This is also the case on the northern route through the Minister's constituency. There are areas on all the main routes where, having enjoyed a good road for a distance, motorists then find themselves driving on a road where the surface may be good but the carriageway is relatively narrow and there are many bends. This takes from the safety of travelling. I do not blame anybody in particular for this position but these needs should be addressed.

Is there a comprehensive survey of the needs, based on reasonable assumptions of a continuing rate of economic growth and an associated growth in traffic? If such an evaluation were made it would show we still have an enormous amount of work to do, despite all that has been done up to now.

The Minister and Minister of State will be aware of the widespread support in the west and elsewhere for a "western crescent" route, a high-quality road from Sligo through Galway and Limerick to Rosslare - more ambitious people would, correctly, start the road in Letterkenny. Such a road is needed and would be a major factor in opening up development of the west. I do not know whether it has been considered but I recommend it as a flagship project for the next phase of Structural Fund expenditure on roads, although it would be hotly contested by other parts of the country. Up to now we have taken the "hub and spoke" approach, building routes from Dublin to other parts of the country, usually beginning from Dublin. It is only in recent years that we have begun to take another view; for example, road improvements around Galway have been important in recent years.

In looking at road development needs we would need an assessment of that kind. If one has been done I would like to see it; if not, it is high time it was carried out because it would give us a useful perspective. It could also produce a more coherent framework within which we could have a deeper discussion on public-private partnerships for some parts of the infrastructure. It is not unrealistic to expect major road projects to be at the bottom of the list for such partnerships, because of the nature of the projects and the length of the payback period. The most attractive projects are toll roads, which have their own difficulties in public opinion. I can see little prospect of widespread agreement on tolling bypasses of the towns I mentioned. It would be useful to have an overview of the strategic requirements of roads, not to get the Minister to draw up a wish list so that I can growl at him about the difference between what has been done and what remains to be done.

In any response to future traffic requirements, even if a new emphasis is put on rail transport, the level of provision for roads will have to be accelerated and there is a continuing need which will become more pressing as time goes by. It might be useful in that context, subject to what the Minister says about a strategic overall view, if the committee had a discussion with the National Roads Authority about how it approaches its definition of priorities, and then discussed a funding framework for those priorities with the Minister, bearing in mind that after 2000 we must rely more on our own resources than we have to date.

There are two vexed questions which many people, including myself, have encountered on our respective local authorities. The first is the range within which the NRA is responsible for various ancillary works to major road improvements; the second is the authority's responsibilty for the maintenance of major roads once constructed. Has the Minister any wisdom to offer on how we might avoid the more poisonous rows between local authorities and the NRA on these issues? Is there a prescribed way of defining ancillary and necessary works? Has he any advice or comfort to offer on the provisions to be made for the maintenance of major road works once they have been completed?

I have another question which, strictly speaking, does not arise on the Estimates - it relates to Dublin traffic. Can the Minister do anything to persuade Dublin local authorities to give up their idioitic, rigid, unchanging, mind-numbing opposition to flyovers? That might help us do something about the white elephant at the Red Cow. During a discussion on the passage of the Luas through that area, it was suggested that a flyover would help resolve the problem of extra road capacity in a way which would not impinge on light rail, but the Dublin local authorities simply refused to countenance it. Although the DTO has dedicated staff it has neither clout, teeth nor a big stick - all it can do is speak softly. We will never have a flyover at the Red Cow for as long as that dispensation persists and it will be an unending source of problems for traffic flows in and out of Dublin. Can the Minister provide a solution to that?

On subhead C5, for other road related services, the Minister mentioned preparatory arrangements for vehicular testing. Could he expand on that? Has he given consideration to the introduction of mandatory testing for all tyres? Some weeks ago his colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, gave the House appalling figures for the increase in road deaths since the beginning of this year and there were further appalling deaths last weekend, so the Department should consider tyre testing in that light. One school of thought suggests that a considerable portion of accidents are caused by poor quality or threadbare tyres which have not been examined or changed in a considerable time. I am aware it is the responsibility of the Garda to monitor this but in other EU countries much stricter testing is enforced, not only on the car but on the quality of the tyres. A proposal was sent to the Minister on this issue some months ago and I received it also. Has this been considered and might it fit under this subhead?

The NRA is responsible for national roads but not ancillary roads. There are roads which fall between those categories and no one wants to take responsibilty for them. The ring road around Dublin is a case in point. There are several ancillary roads which are essential to the operation of the ring road and to traffic management during its construction. The Minister knows about the Dundrum bypass as I have tabled a number of parliamentary questions about it. Ring roads and other routes which are essential to the motorway should be built prior to the construction of the motorway and not simultaneously as that causes total confusion. The NRA, however, is disclaiming responsibility for them. The motorway cannot be properly run if people cannot get to or from it. The Minister should examine this to see how the planning of the road network could be better streamlined. The public find it incomprehensible that we are building a motorway without providing routes to and from it. Essential routes, such as those in the southern cross and south eastern motorway area, should be looked at again. These are the areas which carry the highest density of traffic in the State.

Road opening is not a funding issue but it does have financial implications. Anyone travelling in Dublin or its suburbs knows there is mayhem. All the statutory bodies are developing major investment programmes and there is no co-operation between them. They are digging channels side by side rather than digging one and co-operating. Almost every road in my constituency is under construction in one way or another and several of them are closed. The local authorities have no control over them. There must be some order where the number of organisations with statutory powers is increasing. Unless we bring order to them there will be continued mayhem. In the city there is a power to order them to operate at night but that does not seem to apply outside the city area. They should be forced to co-operate with each other. The ESB is employing security people to mind its ducting as it is being stolen by the other organisations. This is ridiculous.

There is some appalling reinstatement. Some statutory bodies do a great job but there are others who do not. The local authorities have no come back as the companies are entitled to carry out their own reinstatement some of which is not up to standard or pay the local authority to do it. This power cannot be given to every organisation in a capital city. They must be brought to heel. There should be a charge for road opening and companies which share the opening could share the charge. This would encourage them to do the job, reinstate the road and leave as soon as possible.

Where critical arteries and junctions are involved, we should force organisations to work at night. Urban areas cannot continue as they are now. It has been noticeable recently that all of this work has to be done in a period of two months. One road after another is dug up without any co-ordination or control.

The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, will deal with the question of road testing as raised by Deputy Hayes.

Of the £26 million which came back into the programme due to adjustments in the mid-term review, £13 million is built into this year's Estimate and the other £13 million is built into next year's Estimate.

Valid points were made about the work required on the national road network. Good work is being done and improvements have been made over the past ten years but there is a great deal of work still to be done. Regarding the idea of a national picture being given of the required work, the NRA have undertaken a needs study for national roads at the request of the Department. We will use this when drawing up the national development plan which will form the basis for our next submission to Brussels for Structural Funds and European Regional Development Fund for the period to 2006. That study is nearing completion and will be available in mid June. I do not foresee any difficulty with making it available to the public. From the information which I have for the next two decades, the overall need will cost in the region of £6.5 to £7 billion or £350 million per annum over a 20 year period. That will have to be considered carefully.

The Deputy will be aware that my predecessor as Minister, Deputy Howlin, arranged for a pavement study of the non-national roads. That report was presented to me and the figure estimated for improvements to these roads was £825 million. We are trying to implement that over the remaining seven years of the programme which my predecessor started. Each year £94 million will be available for the pavement study of the needs of those roads. That gives an idea of the huge amount of work which still needs to be done.

I assure the Deputy that the western crescent is part of the development plan. The four transport networks in the development plan include this area. It had to be strenuously pursued by the Department and the Government at the time so that it could be met with universal approval in Brussels.

The Deputy made a number of points about traffic congestion, etc. Increased levels of traffic, which have resulted from our economic prosperity, have led to congestion. It is a product of our economic boom but that is not much comfort if one is sitting in a car outside Kildare trying to get to Limerick or Cork. Work on the Kildare bypass is due to start during the next few months and the Deputy's constituency colleague, the Minister for Finance, has spoken to me about the necessity to ensure Monasterevin is bypassed as quickly as possible so that the traffic jams are not transferred there in even greater numbers. We are looking at that and will give it high priority in the development programme.

One does not solve the traffic congestion problem just by providing more roads. We must have a broadly based response to it. Obviously, improving the road infrastructure is very important but public transport is also. There is an awareness about this in Dublin but I am not sure that is the case in other cities and town in terms of better traffic management. Better enforcement of all traffic legislation is needed. In Dublin there is a director of traffic. That there is one supremo is a help in developing traffic management. The DTO is updating the DTI because of the huge increase in the level of traffic around the city. I expect its report in the next month to six weeks and we will take action on foot of that.

I was not aware that Dublin local authorities had such a blind spot about flyovers but I note the Deputy's point and will take it up with the managers concerned to see what are the difficulties. The policy governing private investment in roads was set out in the National Development Plan 1994-9 and Partnership 2000 stated "Detailed assessment of the scope of private financing mechanisms for public infrastructure and the methodology of identification of suitable projects will be undertaken early in the life of the new partnership." An Action Programme for the Millennium reiterated that commitment. Since then, we received proposals from IBEC and CIF in regard to public private partnerships. The Departments of the Taoiseach, the Environment and Local Government and Finance have a sub-committee discussing this at ministerial and official level and the Government agreed to advance public/private partnerships. The Minister made an announcement on this on Monday last. An interdepartmental group drawn from the Departments of the Environment and Local Government, the Taoiseach, Education and Science and Finance and from the NRA, National Treasury Management Agency and the Office of Public Works was also set up to advance this. It is mandated to report by 30 June 1998 and at its first meeting a decision was made to separate to a certain extent the roads element. It is much easier to advance whether dealing with tolls, etc. because the mechanisms can be put in place given that we have examples of them.

I assure the Deputy public/private partnerships for roads and water and sewerage schemes are being advanced and the Government is committed to them. He also referred to the fact that tolling of bypasses is difficult. Tolling per se can be difficult but I am sure that tolling of bypasses is a good idea in terms of traffic management. Generally, it is used as a traffic management measure on the continent to get traffic away from cities. Oslo adopted a different approach by tolling the 14 routes into the city as a traffic management measure to prevent cars from coming in. That must be looked at it, but the Deputy will be aware the EU placed an obligation on us under the mid-term review to have a look at road pricing and traffic management in Dublin city and consultants were appointed to do that. We expect a report before the end of the year.

There is a great deal of sense in what Deputy Mitchell said about road openings and statutory undertakers and, like herself, I am careful not to tar everybody with the same brush, but there is a need to establish order in this. Initially, local authorities could establish more order and ensure, particularly in terms of road repairs and reinstatements, that if one undertakes to reinstate a road and does not do it properly, the local authority should refuse the right to the body concerned to reinstate roads in future and charge them for it. I will come back to the Deputy on this as I am not sure whether there is a statutory power to impose that system on semi-State companies. However, if there is not, I will consider it. There should be order and I acknowledge the Deputies' points, particularly in regard to telephone companies coming on stream which have great difficulty locating their masts or using the same ducting. Heads will have to be banged together to try and ensure something positive results.

Ancillary roads, to which Deputy Olivia Mitchell and Deputy Dukes referred, which are connected to motorway schemes are generally encompassed within the relevant motorway scheme and the related EIS process. They should be looked after in that context. I will raise the issue with the NRA and ask it to review the existing position.

From the information to hand, there has not been a huge number of complaints about it to the Department. The Deputy mentioned two instances, neither of which has started yet. I am aware of one or two around the country which I have taken up. If the Deputy knows of specific instances of it, I would be glad to hear of them.

The Deputy's point about co-ordination is valid with regard to, for example, the Dundrum bypass and the NRA roadway schemes. Such co-ordination takes place and the kind of scenario to which the Deputy referred does not arise, but it is always worthwhile to ask these questions and to see what arrangements are in place.

Deputy Hayes asked about the testing of tyres to ensure their roadworthiness from a road safety point of view. There is a regulation requiring certain specifications in regard to the maintenance of tread depths. The enforcement of that is another question for another authority.

Under an EU Directive, we are required to introduce roadworthiness testing of all motor vehicles over four years old in 1998. Arrangements are in place for the appointment of a contractor to undertake this roadworthiness test. Advertisements were placed in the European journal and newspapers on 31 March to which we received responses by 28 April. Following an evaluation of the applications, up to eight will be invited to submit tenders. It is planned that the tenders will be evaluated and that a contract will be signed by early autumn.

Testing will commence as early as is practicable in 1999. The exact commencement date will not be known until the successful contract is signed. The test fees to be charged by the contractor would be one of the key criteria in the assessment of tender proposals. The test centres will be strategically located to limit the distances motorists will be required to travel for a test.

Obviously, the quality of the tyres on the vehicles will be an important part of this overall roadworthiness test which will be in place some time next year.

We will move on to subheads D1 to D3. I suggest that we deal with all the remaining subheads between now and 1 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I take it we are taking subheads D and E between now and 1 p.m.. Is that correct?

I will make my remarks about subheads D and E together at this stage. I thank the Minister for what he said about the survey of road needs. I appreciate that he has not received the study yet. It would be valuable for the committee to receive that study. I suggest that when the committee receives it, it might discuss the matter with the NRA at an early date, by which I mean September or October, not in a confrontational sense but simply so that we know the NRA view on the matter. Then we might have a discussion with the Minister without the NRA present for obvious reasons. That might be useful. I might enjoy putting the Minister on the spot with representatives of the NRA present.

Or them on the spot with me.

Whichever. It would be fun anyway. However, I do not think it would be particularly helpful for the job which we want to do. Such a discussion would be useful.

I ask the Minister to consider the same approach with regard to waste and waste water services. I recognise that a great deal of work has been done in recent years. A number of important projects, which will bring about major improvements, are under way at present. This is another area where it would be useful for the committee to have an opportunity to look in a more strategic way at the longer-term needs and to discuss how we match the kind or resources we are likely to be able to devote to that to some notion of the pace of development we want to see.

The Minister knows that in a number of local authorities there is a feeling, as they are putting together their development plans, that they want to play a part in reshaping or redirecting development. To give only one example, of which the Minister is aware, Kildare County Council, in the discussion of its development plan, has indicated a strong wish to reorient the axis of development in the county to a more north-south basis from Clane through Naas instead of having all the developments concentrated in the north-east corner of the county. It is a valid point. County Kildare is not the only county where that kind of discussion is going on but that kind of thing would benefit from a strategic and longer-term look at the provision of sanitary, waste and waste water services.

I am even more confirmed in that view by a discussion that my colleagues and I had recently with a group of people who are involved in one way or another in water treatment, water management or the construction of water treatment facilities. The group made the simple point, which had not occurred to me before, that there is little point in thinking one has a strong environment, development and protection policy unless one gets water services right first, water being the basis of everything we need to do.

It said some other things to me about the policies of some other parties which I thought were appalling, but they are not our concern at present - the Minister knows from recent weeks that I am not impressed with Green Party policies on almost anything.

It would be useful for the committee to have that strategic look at water, water management and, to coin a phrase, all of the things which flow from it because that is the kernel of much of what we will do.

I note the Minister's activity on the service lands initiative. As it happens and I do not know whether or not it is a coincidence, this morning I received a copy of the Minister's communication to the local authorities about the proposals for water and sewerage schemes under the service lands initiative. I hope he is inundated with proposals for that.

The Environmental Protection Agency is one of the key pieces of our action here. In a recent objective discussion which my colleagues and I had with the board of the agency, its representatives correctly and tactfully made the point that they feel that in comparison with the job which the agency is expected to do, it is substantially under resourced. I know steps have been taken to improve the resourcing of the EPA, but without any political exaggeration or hype it would be fair to say that, at the rate at which resources are being made available now, it will be a considerable time before we could all be happy that the EPA was in a position to do all of the jobs which we would require of it. The demands on it will inevitably get heavier as development increases. The demands on the EPA will become very onerous if we proceed seriously, as I hope we do, with the line of policy which was set out by the last Government in its document on sustainable development.

The Minister has expressed his support for this policy on several occasions. It includes provisions on water treatment, air quality, ground water quality and emissions and will put enormous pressure on the Environmental Protection Agency. The agency is not always the first line of defence, that is often the local authority. However, the agency is the authority to which we will turn to make sure that our ambitions are lived up to. Does the Minister feel we can resource the agency to the level of our ambitions?

On subhead E, during Question Time some time ago the Minister and I discussed the average age of fire appliances. The Minister may have been putting a better gloss on the situation than I, but he will admit that there are cases in which we are using rather old equipment. Many of our fire services are voluntary and we are asking them to work with less than ideal equipment. This causes a great deal of trouble and, from time to time, not a little risk. Last night I saw a major fire in Newbridge from some distance. This required the attention of six units of the Kildare fire service which is rather well equipped. However, some local fire services are not that well equipped and more capital investment is required.

I do not know if the Minister is at liberty to examine the status of many of our temporary firemen. It is substantially a volunteer force. These people are on call for a considerable period and their financial rewards are rather meagre. There are always problems with similar groups who look for comparisons but this is a vital service and the Minister would perform a good service if he could find some way of improving the conditions under which our voluntary firemen give their services.

We have discussed An Bord Pleanála recently and there is a wide measure of agreement on what needs to be done. On subhead E9, urban renewal, I have already spoken about the development of urban centres. This is only a small part of this area. Rural environmental improvement measures are included. These are carried out mainly by local authorities. That is a worthwhile programme and there are many cases in which important parts of our built heritage have been brought to a new prominence by action taken under this programme. I would like to see this promoted and continued. There is a substantial increase of around £3.5 million in this year's provision and this is to be commended.

Although it is not the only other matter to which one would wish to refer, there is provision for one-stop-shops. What progress does the Minister expect to make by the end of the year on this matter? This provision is to finance a number of pilot projects. Where are these projects and where will we be by the end of the year? Given the time constraints I will leave it at that.

Deputy Dukes referred to the study of road needs and the question of the committee inviting the NRA to attend one of its sessions. This is entirely a matter for the committee. However, I would be willing to come before the committee to discuss these matters at any time the committee decides. Neither do I anticipate any problem from the NRA. It is important that we discuss these matters. The Deputy has views on the committee system and how committees are used or not used. However, one of the benefits of committees is that they give time for a little more strategic planning and thought and are less prone to politicking than might be the case in the Dáil. It is important that they get every co-operation and all of the information possible.

A similar point was made on water and waste water services etc. The Deputy referred to Kildare. Areas around Dublin need strategic planning in this and other areas. Approximately £1.5 billion will be needed for water services between 2000 and to 2006. The Cohesion II programme will be critical to us in trying to implement these improvements. The figure relates to schemes which would currently come under the Cohesion programme. There is a huge number of preliminary reports etc. on other schemes with the Department from local authorities. The standard phrase used about these schemes is that "no source of financing has been identified." I would hesitate to put a figure on the cost but it might be £3 billion.

Yes. Deputy Killeen has visited me frequently about a scheme in Quilty. Some of the schemes have been in since 1976 and would probably need to be revised but there is a huge number of them. They will have to be financed by the Exchequer in addition to the schemes which we will be obliged to implement under the Cohesion funding.

The urban waste water directive has determined the shape of the sewerage schemes. The EPA has identified all the schemes which need to be put in place to conform with that directive. That is the approach we have adopted. It is not, as some suspect, just because the Minister is from a particular constituency that these decisions are made. All parties, apart from one or two, have been in Government since this programme started. Major water and sewerage studies have taken place in Dublin, Waterford and Galway. Other studies are ongoing in Cork and Limerick. A national study will start shortly. It might be timely to come back to the committee and give an overview when we have the results of that study.

The period for the rural water strategy plans is now beginning and this is part of the response to the Federation of Group Water Schemes. Those are under way and, when the reports are published, the programme might be usefully discussed. The Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, is involved in the protection of water and he might want to say something about catchment protection and the approach being adopted. He might also wish to speak about the Environmental Protection Agency and its ongoing programme.

The Deputy made a point about fire appliances. It is acknowledged that there is considerable use of second hand appliances in the fire service. What matters is not the condition of the vehicles but how well they are serviced and how well they perform having regard to their likely use or role. The fire service is performing extremely well and its personnel are dedicated. Many members are voluntary or part-time and make a considerable commitment, as consequently do their families. I acknowledge that and support the fire service. I hope to be in a position next year to increase the level of funding in the capital programme for equipment and for fire stations. As the Deputy will be aware, some of the stations are in such a bad condition, they are not worthy to be called fire stations. They need upgrading and I would like to be able to do that. Pay rates are a matter outside my remit because they are negotiated between the Local Government Management Services Board and the unions.

As regards one stop shops, I hope to announce within the next three or four weeks the first five schemes to be financially supported. Some £1 million is provided in the Estimates for this initiative and the intention is to set up the most advanced schemes. Some local authorities have progressed with the concept of locating various services in the same area and have advanced the concept considerably. Others are not so advanced although they have discussed the matter with various agencies, such as the local authority services, FÁS, local voluntary and community development organisations and social welfare offices. I recently turned the sod of an area office being set up in a central location in Duleek, County Meath, which will house the services of the local authority, the health board and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs office. Some local authorities are advanced in the planning and building of offices and others in discussing the setting up of such offices with various agencies, which involves informing them that it is intended to set up such an office and asking them if they would agree to locate their services in the same place. It may not mean providing a new building for each of the services. In the case of the health board in County Meath, it has been agreed that it will occupy one of the offices for one or two days a week to provide its services in that location. A variety of proposals have been submitted. Laois County Council has decided to approach the matter by providing a one stop information point using touch screen facilities in five or six locations around the county and in the shopping centre in Portlaoise. The next time the Deputy is travelling to Limerick, it would be worth his while to look at it because it is capable of imparting a considerable amount of valuable information. I will make an announcement on the initial five one stop shops and will also probably indicate the next five to follow. I intend the initial allocation for each of the first five to be an equal share of the £1 million, but provision will be made for more money for those next year and for the setting up of another five or six. It will be a rolling programme over eight to ten years to put all the one stop shops in place.

I will deal first with the Environmental Protection Agency referred to by Deputy Dukes. For a relatively new agency - it will be five years in existence next month - it is performing very satisfactorily. It was the intention when it was established that it would be gradually developed and increased in size. The increase in its allocation this year was 24 per cent which is much needed. We are conscious that the work of the EPA and the wider demands on it must be kept under observation. I will be pressing for its work to be monitored, whether it is concerned with national legislation, EU legislation or directives. The agency's function is always increasing and developing. It is doing an excellent job and the Government is aware of it. I assure the Deputy that we will continue to monitor the necessity for resources and increase them as much as possible.

There is a marked reduction in seriously polluted river channels and a significant decrease in slight to moderate pollution now up to 28 per cent of measured channel. Some 71 per cent of river channel length and 61 per cent of lakes examined between 1991 and 1994 are in a satisfactory condition. According to the EPA, the national position on lakes is likely to be more favourable than it is for the group of lakes surveyed. Substantial improvements were recorded in six lakes where waste management strategies were implemented. The report comments favourably on the implementation of catchment oriented pollution control strategies. The REPS and the adoption of sustainability as a key element in the development policy are expected to deliver further benefits. Localised pollution near coastal towns indicates a need for sewage treatment. Some 26 of 58 shellfish areas assessed did not achieve highest quality ratings implying some degree of pollution. This reflects stringent microbiological standards to safeguard public health.

As part of our response to these findings, proposals for implementing the catchment based strategy against eutrophication and for managing Ireland's rivers and lakes by local authorities are currently being obtained from individual local authorities. The question of increasing the provision will be examined in the context of the 1999 Estimates when the analysis of local authority submissions is completed. The objective of this strategy, which was launched in May 1997, is to redress the deterioration of water quality as evidenced by the EPA report on water quality in Ireland in 1991-94.

Deputy Dukes' proposal to meet the NRA and the Minister can be put to the Joint Committee at its next meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Committee has dealt with a number of issues in detail. Spending by the Department, either directly or through the local authorities, is vital to economic and social progress. It is the one Department whose spending affects everybody's life. Ninety per cent of the Estimate is for capital expenditure and the Department spends up to 50 per cent of the entire Exchequer public capital programme. It is a most important programme.

I thank the Members who contributed to this debate for their constructive approach. It is important that Committees such as this meet regularly to discuss wider issues of strategy. Deputy Dukes raised a number of points regarding advertising, ENFO and consultancies while he and Deputy Mitchell also commented on densities. Rather than delay the meeting, I will reply to the Deputies in writing.

Top
Share