SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT debate -
Wednesday, 16 Jun 1999

Vol. 2 No. 3

Estimates for Public Services, 1999.

Vote 25 - Environment and Local Government (Revised).

Chairman

On behalf of the Select Committee I welcome the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, the Ministers of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputies Molloy and Dan Wallace, and their officials.

We are meeting today to consider the Revised Estimate for the Department which amounts to almost £1.35 billion this year. I have circulated a proposed timetable for today's meeting which I hope is acceptable to everybody. We will make best use of our time in considering this important Estimate if we keep the opening statements brief, as proposed, so that the Select Committee as a whole will have an opportunity to debate the major issues involved under the various subheads. Is that agreed?

Mr. Dukes

No, it is not agreed. I thank the Chair for his proposal but on an Estimate like this, five minutes for an opening statement for each of the Opposition spokespersons is not enough. I propose that at least ten minutes be allocated to each Opposition spokesperson. That would take 14 minutes out of the two hours and five minutes you have allocated for the general question and answer session. That would be more appropriate.

Chairman

Deputy Dukes, the problem is that this proposal was sent to the party Whips and nobody said anything about it. It was accepted that there was no objection or problem with it.

Mr. Dukes

That may well be the case, Sir, but I am not aware of any provision in our Standing Orders that requires us to be governed by the party Whips. This is a committee of the House. As a general rule, I deplore this politically correct nonsense that Members of the House are limited in the time they are allocated for important debates. Undoubtedly there are occasions - you, Sir, have come across them - where people take too long to say too little, but to try to suggest that the main spokespersons of the Opposition parties should cover the ground on an Estimate like this in five minutes, even in an introductory way, is not acceptable. I do not care what the Whips say because I do not believe it is right. We are a committee sovereign in the ordering of our own business and it is perfectly within our remit, our ambit and our rights to decide something different.

Mr. Gilmore

I support Deputy Dukes in this matter. We are talking about an Estimate of £1.3 billion and it is absurd to suggest that the Opposition parties will be able to respond in any comprehensive way to an Estimate of that size in five minutes. It is a matter for the committee to decide the time allocation and I support the proposal Deputy Dukes has made that the period of time for the Opposition spokespersons should be extended to ten minutes in each case. The sooner we agree that proposal, the less time we will lose.

Chairman

I am not here to muzzle anybody, lest people think that is what I am trying to do. We will certainly accommodate the two Deputies provided they give a reasonable suggestion but, in fairness, people were notified beforehand and they had a right to give us some indication if they felt that the time being allocated was not adequate. We would have tried to meet their requirements as far as possible.

Mr. Gilmore

With respect, Chairman, this is the first opportunity we have had to indicate that. This is the meeting of the committee. This is where members of the committee express their points of view. The proposal was tabled at the beginning of the meeting of the committee. We are responding to it properly and in order. An amendment has been proposed to the timetable you have proposed. I support that amendment and, because it is a modest proposal, it should be accepted without further ado to let us get on with the business of the meeting.

Chairman

Is it agreed that the time for opening statements should be extended to ten minutes?

Mr. Kelleher

The time for opening statements by Opposition spokespersons could be extended to ten minutes and the position could be reviewed when we come to the general question and answer session on Vote 25.

Mr. Dukes

We could spend whatever time we consider we need on it.

Mr. Kelleher

Yes.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed. I call the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, to speak.

Minister for the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Dempsey)

I am not sure how much time I have to make my contribution. I presume it is approximately 15 minutes.

Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Dempsey

I do not mind how much time is allocated to the Opposition spokespersons, but I thought that was agreed. I propose to use ten minutes of my time on my general speech and I will ask the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, to speak specifically on the housing area, in which committee members would have a great interest, for five minutes.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss my Department's 1999 Estimate with the committee and I look forward to constructive discussions and a useful exchange of information. A short briefing note has been prepared for members of the committee giving details of the overall Estimate and the individual subhead expenditures. My two ministerial colleagues and I will be delighted to assist the committee in any way we can during the question and answer session. If more specific information that is not readily available is sought by members, we will be glad to communicate with them subsequently. The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, will speak directly on house prices, the affordable housing scheme, local authority housing and the social housing output.

I wish to deal first with roads. The 1990s have seen an impressive level of investment in our public road network taking investment to unprecedented levels compared with the previous two decades. When account is taken of the allocation for non-national roads made from the local government fund, the 1999 Estimate at £578 million continues this trend with a 17 per cent increase over the 1998 expenditure of £494 million.

The Revised Estimates for 1999 include a total provision of more than £336 million for national roads. Almost £312 million has been allocated to the National Roads Authority for the construction and improvement of this network. These funds will enable the authority to finance recently completed projects such as the River Lee Tunnel and the Arklow and Curlews by-passes as well as continuing work on major infrastructural projects like the Dunleer-Dundalk and M50 Southern Cross Route motorways and the Cavan and Donegal bypasses. To complement the improvement of the network, over £24 million has been provided to the authority to carry out maintenance works. The 1999 Estimate at £336 million is an increase of almost 17 per cent over the 1998 expenditure figure of £288 million.

On non-national roads, this is the first year in which allocations from my Department for the non-national road network are being made from the local government fund as opposed to my Department's Vote, which was the practice previously. The total non-national road grant allocations in 1999 will amount to over £242 million, an increase of £36.5 million, or almost 18 per cent on the 1998 outturn and an increase of £38.5 million on the original 1998 allocation figure.

The grants provision of over £242 million for 1999 includes over £138 million for the restoration programme or £20 million more than was provided in 1998 under this heading. Since the launch of the programme in mid-1995 to the end of the 1998, more than 15,400 schemes have been completed with over 24,300 kilometres of road improved or maintained, equivalent to 28 per cent of the entire network of regional and county roads. The increased level of funding which is available this year will enable county councils to complete all the restoration improvement schemes identified in their multi-annual programmes for 1999 and 2000. This will significantly accelerate the programme and allow for more rapid progress on the ground.

Spending on these roads will be maintained at a high level in coming years in line with the Government commitment to fund and complete the restoration programme within the original ten year framework set out. This programme will see the entire network of regional and local roads restored to an acceptable condition and this will represent a considerable achievement. All of us here will remember a time when the state of the network was a burning political issue. The fact that it has moved off centre stage in the political agenda is clear evidence that there is public confidence that the restoration programme is working and will be completed within the ten year timescale.

The water and waste water services investment programme is the single element within our efforts to promote environmental quality on which most fiscal resources are expended and I will refer to this presently. There is much more to our wider environmental programme than this investment alone, substantial though it is. Among other components, we recognise the importance of raising awareness and providing information, to promote shared responsibility for the environment and encourage changes in behaviour in the interest of environmental protection and more sustainable lifestyles.

Comhar, the National Sustainable Development Partnership, is a new development in Irish society. This new partnership arose from the Government's commitment to increased public participation in addressing environmental issues and to working in partnership and consultation with the relevant stakeholders. Comhar's wide representation will promote creativity giving it real scope to build our national capacity for finding solutions to the challenges of sustainable development. It will also help to reinforce public and community awareness of, and commitment to, sustainable development giving it a higher profile across Government and public administration. Its broad terms of reference allow Comhar to address a range of relevant issues and to influence many sectors of society. I was very pleased to launch Comhar last February as a new phase in Irish concern for the environment; it will have a budget provision of £180,000 in the current year. I have received recently its work programme for the next three years and look forward to its input over that time.

In addition to that allocation for Comhar, a further £0.5 million has been earmarked for a campaign of public information and awareness on environmental issues generally. In addition, the provision for the environmental partnership fund has been doubled and now stands at £200,000. That extra funding is aimed at developing a greater sense of ownership of the environment among the general public in order to maximise the benefits of the substantial and continuing investment in environmental infrastructure.

On water and waste water services, we are providing over £275 million for capital investment in water and sewerage services, which represents a 50 per cent increase on 1998 expenditure and is more than double the expenditure on these services in 1996. Many commentators have referred to the need to invest heavily in infrastructure to support our developing economy. The increased funding being provided for the water services programme confirms the Government's commitment to deliver on this.

About £230 million of this year's provision will be spent on almost 200 major water and sewerage schemes at various stages of planning and construction and a number of subprogrammes and technical initiatives. A substantial proportion of this will be spent on major sewerage schemes for Dublin - where work on the largest sewage treatment scheme in the State will start this year - and also for Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford and several other larger towns. Within a few years all the major urban centres around the country will be provided with state of the art sewage treatment facilities. Work will also take place this year on the provision of upgraded sewage treatment works in Osberstown, which will provide additional capacity to serve the growing population centres in Kildare, and also protect the quality of the River Liffey. Similarly in the Cork area, work on the Midleton sewerage scheme will commence this year.

Funding is also provided within the overall water and waste water services provision for the rural programme and serviced land initiative. In addition, there is the new rural towns and villages initiative which was announced on budget day. This initiative which is a four year £80 million programme has as its main aim the provision of water service infrastructure in rural areas to support development and combat rural depopulation. A further initiative announced on budget day directed towards improving water quality in private group schemes is also provided for. It is quite clear that, in spite of the major investment in water and sewerage services over the period of the current national development plan, there is still a major infrstructural deficit to be made up. This major investment requirement is coming at a time when the level of future EU funding for these services is unclear. It is essential therefore that the non-domestic sector pays its fair share for the public water and sewerage services that we are providing to it and in addition we bring about greater private sector involvement through PPPs in the provision of these services. Progress is already being made on securing greater private sector involvement by bringing to construction a number of schemes using the design, build and design, build, operate procurement routes. I have also set up, as the Deputies will be aware, a special unit in the Department to look at the potential for further public-private partnerships in the provision of water and also road, solid waste and other relevant services for which my Department has responsibility.

We are also exploring the possibility of public-private partnerships for a number of specific water service projects, particularly those that will have a direct economic impact. I expect that the projects will be identified over the summer, following further consultations. We will obviously be working with local authorities this year to expedite the provision of serviced sites under the serviced land initiative. Over 160 schemes with a value of almost of £100 million have been approved under the initiative which is one of the Government's key measures for addressing the availability and afordability of housing. It is essential that a significant number of these schemes are brought to fruition this year so that the results of the initiative really begin to be felt on the ground in terms of increased supply of housing sites. The limited time available to me does not permit me to touch on many of the other important functions and services for which my Department is responsible and I am conscious that I have not spoken at any length about the local government fund or indeed local government reform, but we must bear in mind that the method of financing local authorities is inextricably bound up with my Department's spending - over 90 per cent of which flows to local authorities in grants and subsidies. However as I said at the outset, the Ministers of State and I will be happy to address any specific issues Members may wish to raise. The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, will address the housing issue.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Molloy)

First, I will deal with house prices. There is strong evidence that the range of measures being taken by the Government to remove overheating in the housing market and accelerate housing supply are working. The provisional house price statistics for the March quarter of 1999 reveal some encouraging trends, in particular Dublin second hand house prices which have been the leading indicator of price trends in recent years indicate an increase of only 1 per cent in the quarter and in fact a total of only 2 per cent over the past six months. A high rate of housing output in the years ahead is the key factor in ensuring price stabilisation and orderly development of the housing market in the medium to long-term. I, therefore, particularly welcome the very large increase in housing output, and in the first quarter of 1999 it is up 24 per cent on the same period last year. Most significantly in Dublin where housing output had been relatively sluggish in recent years there was a 28 per cent increase in output. I am confident that the trend of house price moderation will be further reinforced as we see the results of measures being taken to increase the supply of housing, particularly the supply of affordable housing, including the serviced land initiative, higher residential densities and the new local authority affordable housing scheme and the use of temporary treatment facilities to bring forward housing development, especially in the Dublin area.

The affordable housing scheme brings a new and very direct dimension to Government measures to address the problems of affordability of home ownership by those on moderate and lower incomes. An essential element of the scheme is that it is directly linked to the delivery of additional new houses by local authorities and will not therefore adversely affect house prices. While it is early days for a scheme which involves the construction of houses, my Department is aware of projects which are already planned or under way in Dublin, Galway, Cork, Meath, Cavan, Mayo, Westmeath, Wicklow, Sligo, Wexford, Longford, Donegal, Tipperary and Leitrim and a number of other local authorities are in the process of identifying land for the scheme. This scheme is not being sold as a solution to all the problems faced by housebuyers but it is an important new additional initiative to help bridge the affordability gap which rapid house price increases in the past few years have created for many aspiring home purchasers. I am very conscious of the increased level of social housing need and considerable priority is being afforded to tackling it. The Government has provided for a 39 per cent increase in the capital provisions for local authority housing programmes in two years. The local authority housing programme at 4.500 new starts has been increased to its highest level in many years. The capital provisions in these Estimates for the local authority housing programme are a clear indication of the Government's commitment to the local authority housing programme as the mainstay of the overall response to social housing needs.

The Government has also introduced for the first time a multi - annual local authority housing programme. The new programme, to commence next, year will be resourced to deliver 22,000 additional local authority dwellings over four years; this is equivalent to an increase of over one-fifth in the number of local authority rented houses now in the country. Our approach to meeting social housing needs involves increasing the traditional local authority housing programme, expanding voluntary housing output and increasing output under other complementary schemes such as shared ownership. I expect that the local authority housing programme together with the output from the complementary social housing measures and vacancies occurring in the existing housing stock will enable the housing needs of more than 10,300 households to be catered for in 1999. This will make a significant impact on meeting needs. Social housing output will continue to be increased over the next four years to ensure that the needs of 60,000 will be met over that period.

Mr. Dukes

I do not intend to say much about housing. I will leave that to my colleague, Deputy Brian Hayes but what the Minister of State, Deputy Mulloy, has just said about house prices is a bit disingenuous. He is congratulating himself on an increase of only 1 per cent in Dublin's second hand house prices in the last quarter and 2 per cent over the past six months. It reminds me of what they used to say about that very fashionable hotel in London - the Ritz is open to everybody, as long as you can afford to get into it. I remarked before that the rate of house price increase seems to have slowed down from warp speed to merely supersonic. I do not see any encouragement for people who are already finding difficulty in buying houses. I would like to make a couple of remarks on the housing subheads.

Subhead B.1.3 deals with improvement works to dwellings occupied by applicants on local authority housing waiting lists and subhead B.1.4. deals with extensions to local authority dwellings, again for applicants who are on local authority housing waiting lists. Will the Minister consider expanding the categories of people who qualify for that because it is a very real social function for improvement works and extensions to local authority dwellings. They range from providing for the needs of increasing families to providing for the needs of families which have members who suffer from various disabilities and to families where one or more of the children may be lone parents and the family feels it is better that the lone parent remain in the family home than going elsewhere. There is a case for provision to cater for those needs and I know there is a limited provision available to local authorities to cover cases where the tenants are not buying their houses, but I think to limit these two schemes in the way they are limited to people who are on waiting lists for local authority dwellings seems rather restrictive. I was appalled the other day to read that New Labour in the UK appears to have been listening to what the Tánaiste said during the course of the last general election about redirecting social supports to unmarried mothers. I hope for the sake of a great many people in those circumstances in the UK they will not pursue that programme too vigorously. We have managed to deflect the Tánaiste from that daft proposal here. It is a matter of great regret that we will see unfortunate young English people subjected to the kind of heartlessness proposed by the Tánaiste during the last election.

On subhead B1.9 - provision of accommodation for travellers - I see a useful increase in the provision for this year compared to last year. I would like to think that coming towards the end of this year we would have another look at that matter, particularly since there seems to have been - colleagues from Dublin in all the parties will bear this out - during the course of the recent local authority elections, a very worrying trend of a focused campaign of opposition to the provision of traveller sites, resulting in the election of a number of people to local authorities on an anti-traveller site accommodation platform. I know there are difficulties and that it is a matter that needs to be handled with great sensitivity, but it has become a fairly poisonous issue in some areas. It is fair to say that some of the campaigns run during the course of the recent local elections verged on racist. It is a worrying trend and is something we should look at, perhaps towards the end of this year, to see what progress has been made and what difficulties exist and consider what we might do to overcome them.

The Minister mentioned the non-national roads refurbishment scheme. I agree there has been an increase in the provision for this scheme since its introduction by the last Government. I do not agree that at the rate at which it is going there will be a complete refurbishment of non-national roads in the ten year timescale set out. That programme needs further reinforcement. It is a programme that is subject to the vagaries of the weather and to other kinds of development. The Minister is aware there are local authorities that do not present plans for the improvement of specific roads because of operations such as gravel-quarrying and so on. We will need another look at how to deal with the effects of those. There is a whole section of north-west Kildare where roads, totally unsuitable to heavy traffic, are being pounded to pieces by a combination of heavy construction material-based traffic combined with other traffic rat-running from the main roads to avoid congestion.

I am puzzled by the presentation of subhead C3 - vehicle and driver licensing expenses. I see an increase of £728,000 in the provision which covers expenditure undertaken centrally by the Department on behalf of licensing authorities. How does that fit in with what the Minister has been doing about the local authority fund? Is there another way of covering all that and, if so, can we have a look at it? The note in the subhead states that expenditure under this subhead is recouped from the local government fund. Does that mean there is no net cost to the Department from that provision?

On the water and sewerage services programme, the Minister in his script said that within a few years all the major urban centres around the country will be provided with state of the art sewage treatment facilities. This begs the questions: (a) what is a few years and (b) how many of the urban centres are classified as major urban centres? I raised the question not long ago about a target date of when we might expect all the urban centres would be equipped with waste water treatment plants at a level which would allow waste water to be returned to the environment without doing damage. The answers I got back on the number of such schemes and on the timing of those schemes were, not to put too fine a tooth on it, evasive. It is not acceptable that we are looking at a continuation of a situation where in urban centres - towns with populations of 5,000 to 6,000 - there will be, in ten years' time, cases of raw sewage being discharged into water courses. I do not think I am being alarmist in saying that. At the rate we are proceeding, it is a fairly realistic expectation that that will continue to be the case.

The Minister went on to say: "It is essential, therefore, that the non-domestic sector pays its fair share for the public water and sewerage services that we are providing to it". He went on to talk about public-private partnerships, the development of which we all support, but I wonder what exactly the Minister meant when he said "the non-domestic sector pays its fair share". Is the Minister suggesting local authorities should look again and charge the non-domestic sector for water and sewerage services on a cost-recovery basis, for which a case can definitely be made? Is he saying there is a feeling in local authorities that for the provision of water services the charges are not enough to meet the costs? What exactly is he saying? The statement is a bit Delphic, oracular, and it is not immediately clear what he means. I would support the Minister in exploring the possibility of public-private partnerships for a number of specific water services, particularly those that have a direct economic impact. I hope the consideration being given to that in Government will be fruitful.

In regard to housing, the Minister mentioned the provision of serviced sites under the serviced land initiative. I note that a number of local authorities are involved in investigating the provision of land under that initiative. In his reply, perhaps the Minister will say if their remit in the provision of serviced sites is for the provision of affordable serviced sites. It is one thing to have serviced sites available, it is another to look at the price of those sites. There is a strong feeling that an increase in the provision of serviced sites at an affordable price for the average new housing market entrant is something we should encourage and ask local authorities to expand as far as they possibly can.

Under subhead D2, there is a substantial increase of almost £5 million in grants for waste management projects. I welcome that increase, but I know the Minister will not be surprised when I say, better late than never. I have been amazed by the fact we have a body of legislation relating to waste management which is only very slowly being brought into operation. The same applies to the implementation of legislation on litter. The Minister of State launched a new initiative recently, which I hope will be very successful. Our waste management and anti-litter legislation and regulations have not been implemented by local authorities at anything like the rate we have the right to expect.

I would like to believe that the Department of the Environment and Local Government and the Ministers were harassing local authorities to take their responsibilities in this area seriously. I do not have the impression that any such harassment is taking place. The Ministers are adopting a far too gentlemanly approach to this and are not policing the operation of this legislation enough and pushing the local authorities to meet their obligations strongly enough.

An increase of about £0.9 million is being provided for the Environmental Protection Agency. This allocation is for administrative and general expenses. It is fairly clear that even with this increase in funding the EPA is not equipped to deal adequately with the full range of services it has been set up to provide. There has been an argument about the extent of its remit which will go on for a long time. Even given its current remit under the legislation, it is clear that it is not in a position to push the implementation of legislation as energetically as it needs to be done if we are to take our commitment to environmental improvement and sustainable development generally as seriously as we should. That is not in any sense a criticism of the people working there; they can do only so much with the resources they have.

I mentioned before that I recently came across one case of many where the EPA is clearly too stretched to be able to decide whether a proposed scheme to deal with dangerous waste is one which can be properly dealt with under the heading of dangerous rather than toxic waste. A discussion has gone on for months without coming to a conclusion simply because people in the EPA do not have the time to devote to resolving a simple specific issue. The EPA is under-resourced and cannot do the job we want it to do given the level of resources it currently has.

The same can be said of our fire and emergency services. I am sure the Minister, like me, read a piece in one of our newspapers a couple of weeks ago about a Dublin fire brigade ambulance which had one million miles on the clock. It was, in every sense of the word, totally clapped out. In our emergency services, we still have too large a number of old fire appliances and now, I understand, rather old ambulances which are a serious danger and a hindrance to the ability of our fire and emergency services to the job we want them to do. How much time do I have left, given this absurd limiting of time?

Chairman

You have spoken for a quarter of an hour, but motor on.

Mr. Dukes

Thank you. Since there has been some improvement in the roads outside here, perhaps we can motor a little more comfortably in here. I will not say much about the architectural heritage protection survey because Report Stage of the Bill dealing with that matter is forthcoming and we will have the opportunity to discuss that.

An Bord Pleanála is another body which is under-resourced. This week we were asked to take a motion without debate to increase the membership of An Bord Pleanála. I refused to agree to take the motion without debate because we need to debate the position in An Bord Pleanála. We had hopes when we last provided for an increase in the membership and staffing of An Bord Pleanála that we would begin to see some rapid improvement in the response time of An Bord Pleanála, but I regret that has not happened. The operations of An Bord Pleanála are slowing up the planning and improvement process. It is becoming an increasing problem in a series of areas throughout the country.

I have some sympathy for the Minister, his colleagues and the Department in what they are trying to do about urban regeneration and village and urban renewal. The measures here are all useful, but we should give the Minister some extra sympathy because the job he and his Department are trying to do has been made more difficult by the absolute chaos and mess the Government made of the taxation part of the urban renewal proposals. That entire programme has been seriously compromised by the ineptitude with which that was handled. It has not yet been resolved, and I do not know when it will be. The current Commission in Brussels will not make any decisions on resolving that so it looks as if we will have to wait until next year to know the fate of the tax based element of urban renewal, announced with great panache and fanfare some time ago.

As I forecast at the time, there are very disappointed people in urban authorities throughout the country. People were always going to be disappointed because of the decisions made in private conclave by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and the Minister for Finance. Even towns which clearly qualified under the criteria were going to be left out because there was not enough money for the scheme. They have all been put back even further into the doldrums because the Government made such a mess of handling its relations with Brussels over the tax based elements. I know it is not the Minister for the Environment and Local Government's part of the scheme. The Minister for Finance made a hames of it and is holding everything up.

Mr. Dempsey

About what secret conclave is the Deputy talking?

Mr. Dukes

I am talking about the provisions in the legislation under which decisions on the towns to get the advantages were to be made by the Minister for Finance in consultation with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. We had a lengthy discussion on that on Second Stage of the Bill.

Mr. Dempsey

It is not the selection of the particular towns.

Mr. Dukes

Yes. It was clear——

Mr. Dempsey

That was done by the Deputy's party in Government; it brought in that legislation.

Mr. Dukes

If the Minister is going to interrupt me, he should at least get his facts right. He was the sponsoring Minister of the legislation. He took responsibility for a scheme which left it up to the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in private conclave to decide which of the qualifying towns would get the advantages of the scheme. That was clearly the case, and still is if the scheme comes into operation. The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, did not inherit that legislation from anybody else. The Minister introduced it in the Dáil and it provided specifically that even if a town qualified for all the benefits under the scheme, nobody would know it would get them until the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government so decided.

Mr. Dempsey

That is a lie.

Mr. Dukes

Even if the Minister's favourite bridge qualified under a tax relief proposal, it would still be up to the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to decide.

Chairman

Deputy Dukes, you have gone way over your time.

Mr. Dukes

The Minister cannot distance himself from a Bill which he brought before the House.

Appropriations-in-aid include a provision of £0.6 million recoupment from the appointed franchisee of costs incurred by the Department in connection with the new vehicle testing scheme. Is the Minister satisfied that the service to be provided under the new vehicle testing scheme will be available within reasonable reach of motorists who have cars which need to be tested? It is probably the case that people in urban areas will not have to travel long distances to testing centres but it has been indicated to me that people in some rural areas may have to travel 30 miles or more to one of the proposed vehicle testing centres. That would be a rather onerous imposition in the interests of a sensible scheme which should contribute to road safety.

Thank you, Chairman, for your indulgence. I regret the Minister interrupted me and caused me to be a little disorderly.

Mr. Gilmore

I want to concentrate on the housing provision in the Estimate and perhaps pick up on some of the other programmes during the question and answer session.

The Estimate is for 1999. We began the year with the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government with responsibility for housing, Deputy Molloy, telling us and the country that there was no housing crisis. That is, fortunately, a view which he has somewhat revised in the meantime.

Mr. Molloy

I never said any such thing.

Mr. Gilmore

He refused to describe it as a crisis and he has engaged in a certain amount of revisionism since then.

Mr. Molloy

The Deputy may call it any name he likes; it is a housing problem.

Mr. Gilmore

The Estimate will tell us whether the Minister's revisionism since the beginning of 1999 and all the initiatives he announced at various stages over the past couple of months are real. Unfortunately, for those who are on housing lists and those who cannot afford to buy a home, it is quite clear from the Estimate that what the Minister has been saying for the past four or five months is spoof.

On the question of house prices, we have become accustomed to the Minister telling us that house prices are coming under control. The more he tells us this, the more he reminds me of one of those generals in the bunker telling the Fuhrer they were winning the war even when the Allies were marching down Unter del Linden. In this case, he has grasped at the straw of the March figures, and at only a segment of them. Even a superficial examination of his Department’s housing statistics would show him, first, that one cannot generalise from the figures for one quarter, second, that the rate of increase in house prices has varied dramatically in each of the past three or four years from one quarter to another and, third, that house price increases tend to be higher in the second half of the year than in the first half of the year based on the figures over the past couple of years.

It also flies in the face of all the evidence which is available from many eminent economists which shows that in 1998 house prices increased by about 22 per cent. There are predictions that house prices will increase in 1999 by about 20 per cent. A recent report showed that house prices in Ireland are now the highest in Europe, which comes as no surprise to those who are in the market trying to buy a home and who are finding that they are simply priced out of the market. The housing commission which reported to the Labour Party showed that there are 135,000 people in need of housing. The housing market is something about which they read in the newspapers and to which they cannot gain entry.

The Minister's second point is that housing output has increased. He expects an increase of 24% in the first quarter of 1999 and he expects that to continue throughout 1999. That is good news, indeed, for the construction industry. I am not so sure that it is quite such good news for first-time buyers. The Estimate betrays that fact because subhead B2.1 - the provision for first-time buyers' grant - will rise from under £31 million in 1998 to £32 million in 1999, an increase of between 3 and 4%. If the number of new houses being constructed is increasing by 24% and the number of first-time buyers is increasing only by between 3% and 4%, who is buying all these new houses? It bears out the conclusion which was reached in the Labour Party's housing commission report that, notwithstanding the initiatives in the Bacon report, there is once again largescale investment buying in the housing market. It is quite clear that whoever is buying the new houses which are being built, the additional new houses are not being bought by first-time buyers. That bears out the considerable anecdotal evidence which is available to all of us that new housing schemes are being bought up and rented out at high rents to those who cannot afford to buy the homes in the first instance.

The Minister's third point is that the housing capital programme has increased by 39%. It has if one includes the various refurbishment schemes in the equation, all of which, incidentally, I welcome. However, if one looks at the figures for the direct provision of local authority housing, it is an entirely different picture. Subhead B1.1, the subhead for the provision of local authority housing, shows an increase from about £147.5 million to £161.7 million, an increase of about £14 million or 10%, which is a far cry from the 39% to which the Minister referred. When, in turn, one adjusts that for the increase in the cost of building, which is probably in the order of about 3% to 4%, the real increase in the provision of public housing is not the 39% which the Minister suggests but only 6% or 7% at a time when the number on the housing list has increased to about 45,000. Of course the Minister does not know the exact number of applicants on the housing list because it is taking him nine or ten months to count the returns which have been made by local authorities.

The provision in the Estimate for public housing is simply inadequate. The Minister said that the provision in the Estimate will provide for 4,500 starts. Figures for housing starts remind me a little of the monthly figures we used to get for job approvals during the height of the unemployment crisis. As unemployment continued to rise throughout the 1980s, we continued to receive announcements of job approvals. Of course it took a number of years before people began to twig that job approvals were far different from actual job provision. The same is the case with house starts. We know that figures which are announced for house starts are a far cry from those for houses actually being built.

I would like the Minister of State to provide figures for the number of announced house starts and the number of house completions in each of the past years because the pattern in this area has been absolutely consistent. Each year the number of houses provided falls considerably short of the number of starts that are announced. Even if we take the figure of 4,500 starts, which is miserable when compared to a housing waiting list of 45,000, it is fair to assume that those starts will not be realised and that, at best, only 3,500 will be completed.

I know the Minster of State will indicate that at a rate of 4,500 starts it will take ten years to clear the 45,000 people waiting on the housing list. He will argue that to those 4,500 starts must be added the other great initiatives he announced such as affordable housing and voluntary housing schemes. He will also contend that casual vacancies must be taken into account. However, the number of these vacancies is on the decline because of the decline in the numbers of people emigrating. Any local authority will state that the number of casual vacancies in a year does not compare to the numbers which obtained four to five years ago. Therefore, the ratio of house starts to lettings is, in my opinion, falling. This again emphasises the need to provide additional public housing.

In recent months, the Minister of State announced a number of initiatives in the social housing area. However, I see no reference to them in the Estimates. For example, no subhead is provided to give effect to the affordable housing initiative. If the Minister of State says that it falls under the provision of sites for private housing, the additional provision under that subhead is less than £2 million which will hardly make an enormous contribution to easing the housing crisis. The increase granted in respect of the voluntary housing sector is less than £5 million in a country where the voluntary sector is much smaller than in any other European country and runs at approximately 1% of total housing provision.

We appear to be on the receiving end of a great deal of rhetoric about the contribution the voluntary housing sector and the affordable housing initiative can do to improve housing provision, without that rhetoric being reflected in financial provision in the Estimates. Announcing schemes which are not provided for in the Estimates is the worst kind of public relations spoof and it is an act of cynicism against those on the housing lists who are trying to buy homes of their own and who grasp at any newspaper headline that gives them a sense of hope that they will be provided with houses.

We now know the truth, namely, that the succession of announcements made by the Minister of State in the past four or five months in respect of new housing initiatives amount to nothing because provision has not been made for them in the Estimates. He made an announcement at his party conference that an additional 22,000 local authority houses would be provided in the next four years, but no provision is made for this in the Estimates. Not one penny has been provided for those 22,000 houses.

Mr. Molloy

How could money be provided? The scheme does not begin until 1 January 2000.

Mr. Gilmore

When will those houses be finished? The Minister of State knows that there is a lead-in period in respect of the provision of housing which can last up to two years. If he does not provide funding for the additional houses to which I refer until the beginning of the year 2000, it will be 2002 before they are provided for.

I do not know whether it has dawned on the Minister of State but there is an urgency with regard to the provision of housing. There are tens of thousands of families who are living in appalling conditions and who are desperately seeking new houses. Marriages are breaking up because of the pressure experienced by people who are obliged to live in overcrowded and cramped conditions with their in-laws and other members of their families. There are people living in private rented accommodation in circumstances which they cannot afford. There are also those who earn low incomes, who do not qualify for rent allowances and who are living in absolute poverty because of the level of rent they are obliged to pay for their accommodation. There are others who are going onto local authority waiting lists for housing because they cannot afford to buy a home of their own.

Many of these people have taken comfort from the statements made by the Minister of State in recent months, particularly his announcement of the affordable housing initiative. I have been contacted at my advice centre by people eager for information about that initiative and asking how to apply to be considered for it. What am I going to tell them, given that not one penny is provided for the initiative in the Estimates?

People have contacted me in respect of the additional housing the Minister of State promised to provide. Journalists have telephoned and stated that while there may be 45,000 people on the waiting list, the Minister of State will provide 22,000 of them with houses. However, allocation has not been made in the Estimates to allow these houses to be built. Not only that, funding for a number of the schemes already in existence which would have eased some of the pressure on the housing waiting list is actually being reduced in the Estimate. For example, funding under subhead B1.3 - improvement works in lieu of housing scheme - is being reduced from £4.3 million to £2.7 million. Funding for the scheme for the provision of extensions to local authority dwellings, a scheme which might have been particularly suited to single parent families, is being reduced from just over £2.5 million last year to £2 million this year.

This is a miserable Estimate on housing which does not reflect the rhetoric we have been hearing from the Government in respect of housing during the past year. This Estimate is a pathetic failure and it should be revised. The Minister of State and his officials should return to the Custom House with it, do their sums and return to the committee with an Estimate that will provide some hope for those who are in need of housing. There is no point in informing people that the new housing schemes will begin at the beginning of 2002 because those houses will not be completed until the Minister of State and the Government have left office. As far as people on waiting lists are concerned, the sooner the better that happens.

Chairman

Other Members will have to be brief as Deputy Gilmore spoke on housing for almost 18 minutes.

Mr. Gilmore

I apologise for that.

Mr. Killeen

Our discussion on housing has taken up a great deal of time and I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Minister of State recognise the fundamental difficulties and are trying to address them. If that had been done two, three or four years ago, the Minister of State's job would be much easier. There are a number of fundamental difficulties in respect of the provision of housing, including those thrown up by the planning system. I would welcome a debate on An Bord Pleanála such as that suggested by Deputy Dukes.

I am glad the Minister, the Minister of State and the Department are targeting the serviced sites initiative at areas which enable the provision of housing. Deputy Gilmore is correct that there is a lead-in period of between one to four years in respect of the provision of housing. However, the Minister of State can only begin his initiative now, he is not responsible for what happened three or four years ago. The Government is taking a responsible approach which will bear fruit, perhaps not as quickly as everyone desires but at least it is being undertaken.

However, elements of the Estimate beg questions, such as subhead B1.3 - the "I will" scheme. I suspect the reason for the reduced allocation this year is that fewer people are taking up the scheme and local authorities find that the cost of undertaking these jobs is so close to the cost of providing a new dwelling that they are disposed to providing a new dwelling. Inherent in this is a difficulty which arises with almost every Government initiative. When one implements such a scheme, the service providers suddenly find it necessary to increase the cost of the job at an inexplicable rate, but perhaps, it is justified.

Jobs that one might have expected to cost £25,000 or £30,000 two or three years ago are estimated at £50,000, £60,000 or £70,000 now. The more money Departments allocate for initiatives, the more it is likely that it is creamed off the top by service providers who provide a reduced service. I do not know whether it is possible to monitor such schemes to ensure that Exchequer spending produces the best return. It seems to almost always happen that if a £10,000 grant is provided for a project, its cost increases by £11,000. The "I will" scheme which had social advantages in terms of allowing people to reside in the communities in which they already lived, apart from providing a good quality dwelling appears to have been misused and abused to some extent. If the main factor is a reduction in the take-up of the scheme or it is outside people's cost parameters, it is undesirable. I do not know how it can be addressed by the Minister but I want it examined by all local authorities.

There are similar experiences with the provision of single rural dwellings. Three or four years ago the cost was substantially less than that of providing a house in a local authority development. The cost of a rural dwelling on a free site is £15,000 or £20,000 dearer than it was a relatively short time ago. I do not know what the Minister can do about that but it seems, having dealt with a number of cases in my constituency, there is some room for flexibility whereby the recipient could have an input into the construction of the house. Sometimes that is possible in monetary terms. Local authorities could monitor it effectively and an allowance could be made to bring this huge cost under control.

Subhead B1.5 is similar. Co-operative and non-profit housing groups which were active seven or eight years ago seem to be less so now and I am disappointed that development groups which expend a great deal of goodwill and energy calling for improvements in their areas could not be encouraged to take a proactive approach and make the leap of faith from being talking shops to being active and providing an outlet under the co-operative and non-profit housing initiative.

With regard to subhead B1.6, local authorities on occasion appear to leave houses unoccupied for extraordinary lengths of time. They generally say that they cannot afford to undertake the refurbishment works that are necessary. I have seen such houses unoccupied for totally unacceptable lengths of time and there does not seem to be anybody at departmental level who can tell local authorities that it is unacceptable to leave houses unoccupied for a year to two, and sometimes even longer, when hundreds of people are looking for housing in the same areas.

It is interesting that the debate on this Estimate has almost bypassed roads and sanitary services when, as the Minister said, it would have taken up 80% of everybody's time only a number of years ago. There clearly have been major improvements in this area which should at least be noted. He also indicated that he did not have time to deal at any length with the local government fund. However, I am interested in the equalisation fund. Is it possible to obtain a table to see how the fund is distributed between various counties?

I turn to subhead D2.2. There is concern about the quality of ground water but I do not know how well placed it is. However, it should be possible to have an initiative on it. There are areas where the number of septic tanks, particularly where strata of rock are underneath, leads to a serious deterioration in the quality of ground water. Is the Minister prepared to consider a grant or tax write-off for people who wish to replace septic tanks in those areas with treatment plants? Of course, if that were to happen tomorrow, the cost of the treatment plants would double and that of the five or ten year maintenance contracts would probably treble. There would need to be a cap or control on prices on such work. However, it would be worthwhile because while there are problems with ground water quality, some work on the provision of septic tanks exacerbates it dramatically. In areas such as the Burren, where I live, there is evidence that septic tanks contribute to poor quality ground water. Health risks are also associated with it and an initiative at least should be considered on this.

Subhead D2.3 is the responsibility of the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace. He has a small budget but I commend him for the initiatives he has taken. I have seen him in action in my own county and, at a small cost, worthwhile work has been undertaken. He is fighting the anti-litter campaign with great effort and gusto. Over the years the Department of Health and Children has undertaken expensive anti-smoking campaigns and common sense dictates that they should have been successful, but, nevertheless, people chose to ignore them. It is hardly a surprise that they also choose to ignore the anti-litter campaign. How focused can we be in attacking these difficulties? Smoking will be a huge cost to the Exchequer down the road but litter will be also in terms of the image of the country, tourism and our view of ourselves as a society. However, I commend the Minister of State's efforts in that regard.

I also welcome the increase for libraries under subhead F2. It is an area that is sometimes overlooked, but it is hugely important. Subhead F12 relates to the planning tribunal. I do not know whether the provision is for the entire cost or whether the Minister has the misfortune to be responsible for the entire cost of the tribunal. If he is responsible for the cost, it is hardly a realistic allocation if the costs that are bandied about currently are to be believed. Is it possible to monitor the cost of such tribunals?

Two ill effects of lack of monitoring are relatively obvious. Taxpayers money is wasted, which could have been used in worthy areas, but what is more damaging is that tribunals will become so unpopular that even when they are clearly needed to address specific issues, there will be a marked reluctance to go down that road, and sometimes there is such a need. We could be in a position in future whereby no matter how bad the scandal, the scandal of the cost of the tribunal will be potentially worse. I do not know how it can be monitored or brought under control, but unless it is, we will face serious difficulties.

On balance, there is a great deal of good news regarding the major areas of responsibility in the Minister's brief.

Mr. Hayes

Obviously, there is some good news in the Estimate, but it does not meet the scale of the problems which we face, particularly in regard to the housing crisis. Piecemeal increases in various subheads will not make an impact on the ground. It is absolutely crucial for the Minister to outline precisely when he will bring forward the Estimate that will be required for the increase in local authority housing, which he announced at his party's conference, and when he will initiate the affordable housing scheme. These are the issues he must clarify. His self-congratulatory remarks do not bear out the facts. While there has been an increase in funding for the local authority house building programme, the reality is that as a total percentage of the capital expenditure by this Government, the amount spent on new starts has decreased. In 1994 we spent 8.4% of our capital resources, in leaner financial circumstances than we are in now, on building new homes for people on council housing lists. In 1995 the Government of which my party was part spent 9.3% of total capital expenditure on new starts. We discovered, from a reply to a parliamentary question I put down to the Minister of Finance, that since the Government came to office, there has been a substantial reduction in the capital budget allocated to the provision of new homes for people on council housing lists. The figure of 8.1% in 1997 decreased to 7.4% in 1998. This year only 6.9% of the total available resources in the capital budget will go towards new starts.

This is an indication of how seriously the Government takes the housing list. It is disgraceful and belies the negotiating skills of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government as regards the Minister for Finance that he tells us he has acquired 6.9% of the total capital spend for new homes at a time of unprecedented demand for local authority and social housing. This is the disgrace which is the cornerstone of these Estimates, which the Government and the Minister with responsibility for housing have presented to this committee. Why, when there are such available current and capital resources, are we spending less than 7% on the provision of new homes for those on low and modest incomes? It is a scandal for which the Minister is responsible to the committee and the House.

There is also a problem with the actual number of new starts every year. Last year the Minister told us his objective was 3,900 new starts during 1998 when the number built was less. The homeless initiative magazine Cornerstone, stated that a 23% increase in funding for 1998 over 1997 produced 3% fewer housing starts and acquisitions. It went on to state, “this suggests that the 18 per cent increase in the local authority house building programme for 1998 is unlikely to result in any significant increase in the number of housing starts and acquisitions so local authorities will be hard pressed to match the Minister’s current target of 3,500 housing starts for this year”.

We are hearing from all levels, including agencies working directly with those on the ground, that the provision in this Estimate is completely inadequate and the Minister is failing to meet the targets he sets. This year he has set a target for the provision of 900 voluntary houses when last year only 485 voluntary housing association starts took place. That is the reality. The Minister is failing to realise the targets he is setting before the House when the figures are produced. He should look at the bulletin to which I referred because it is there for him to see.

I agree with Deputy Gilmore about the £2 billion allocated to the 22,000 additional new homes in the next few years. We need those houses now. The Minister deliberately refused to indicate the number of people on the housing list before the local elections even though he knew the figure because it would lead to a national outcry. Why has it taken eight or nine months for those figures to be published? He will publish them next September when he knows the extent of the crisis. In 1996, 26,000 applicants sought local authority homes. I suspect from my information that there is now an additional 46,000 applicants. As I understand, the information should have been in the Department by 31 May. Will the Minister tell the committee the precise number of applicants as a result of the survey which took place last March?

There is no provision in this Estimate for the proposed housing commission. In the past two years, following the Minister's dithering on the issue, he finally agreed to establish a housing commission which would examine the issue of security of tenure and those who called for it accepted that. However, we have yet to hear an announcement. Will the Minister point out where in the Estimate he has made provision for that commission during 1999? This was one of the commitments given by the Minister in light of the second Bacon report. I have asked him on numerous occasions since then to tell us when it will be established. Can we take it from this Estimate that the commission will not be established in 1999 and is this another commitment on which the Minister is welching. Where in the Estimate will the moneys be found for the establishment of that commission?

Mr. Molloy

The cost will be minimal. I do not know why the Deputy is making an issue of it.

Mr. Hayes

When will the terms of reference be announced?

Mr. Molloy

It is with the Attorney General and we will make an announcement fairly soon.

Mr. Hayes

Yes, six months after the event. Once again the Minister is following the crisis.

Mr. Gilmore

What does the Attorney General have to do with it? This is not a legal matter.

Mr. Dempsey

The landlord and tenant legislation.

Mr. Hayes

This is a commission which will come up with proposals that will then go before the Legislature. The Minister knows he has welched on the commitment he gave. Will the Minister also clarify the spin his Department put on the issue of ring-fencing a certain percentage of new homes for the social housing area? About two weeks ago we heard the Department was contemplating this in the context of the new planning Bill which is due to published in the not too distant future. We were then told that the Minister is not contemplating this and it is a matter for local authorities, the Dublin Docklands Authority or other authorities, but no mandatory scheme will be imposed.

Mr. Dempsey

Who told the Deputy that?

Mr. Hayes

It was reported in a newspaper.

Mr. Dempsey

The Deputy should not believe everything he hears in newspapers. They are a very poor source of information.

Mr. Hayes

Why will the Minister not clarify the position? Will the new legislation on planning contain a section allocating a certain percentage of all new houses to the social housing area? If that is the position he should tell the committee as he rarely attends. He has an opportunity to reply directly to the question.

Mr. Dempsey

Excuse me——

Mr. Hayes

I did not interrupt the Minister. He can reply in turn.

Mr. Dempsey

I am asking the chairman's permission to put a question to the Deputy. When have I refused an invitation to attend this committee? I have responded to every invitation that has been issued by this committee.

Mr. Hayes

The Minister will get his chance to reply. It would be wise of him to stop interrupting me as I did not interrupt him.

Mr. Dempsey

I am entitled to interrupt if the Deputy is telling lies to the committee.

Mr. Gilmore

The Minister should withdraw that.

Mr. Hayes

I said we rarely see him here.

Mr. Dempsey

If I am not asked I will not come.

Mr. Hayes

There was no implication in what I said - it is obviously the Minister's own warped mentality.

Chairman

I ask Deputy Hayes to conclude. I wish to make one thing crystal clear. The Minister has never refused an invitation to attend a committee meeting since I became Chairman. He has attended every time he was requested.

Mr. Hayes

I never said anything but that.

Chairman

I have allowed Deputy Hayes to run well over his time.

Mr. Hayes

I will conclude with a number of remarks, if I am not interrupted again.

Mr. Molloy

What procedure are we following? I understand a timetable was circulated. It is certainly not being adhered to.

Mr. Hayes

I suspect we are on general questions.

Mr. Molloy

Will the Chairman tell us what timetable or procedure he is following in the context of what was printed and distributed and where we are now?

Chairman

The Minister will respond to statements and questions followed by closing statements from both sides.

Mr. Molloy

It is a change from what was circulated.

Mr. Hayes

Will the Minister clarify whether, in the new planning Bill, this mandatory scheme will be imposed on all local authorities, or will the Government once again go down on bended knee to the building industry as it did with other matters it failed to address?

Subhead B1.9 deals with travellers' accommodation. Will the Minister inform the committee of the success or otherwise of the implementation of the Housing (Traveller Accommodation) Act passed by the Dáil and Seanad some time ago? Given that most of the plans will have been agreed at local authority level, I presume next year's Estimate will see a massive increase in the subhead to deal with the issue comprehensively in every local authority area at the same time. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.

Regarding subhead B1.16, does the Minister agree that, following the ESRI report on estate management and the appalling conditions many citizens face within some local authority estates, we need to radically expand the housing management initiative? The initiatives taken in Britain in terms of housing and estate management have yielded good results. When will the Minister put more resources into that area?

Regarding subhead B1.17 which relates grants in respect of housing research, does the Minister agree we need to put in place a national network of housing advice agencies? While Threshold and other groups such as the National Association of Building Co-operatives provide useful information, they have limited resources and are based in two or three centres throughout the country. One of the needs arising from the housing crisis is good advice, be it for people in the rented sector, for those trying to purchase a house or those wishing to become involved in shared ownership schemes. Sometimes that advice is required outside the local authority structure. Does the Minister agree the subhead is insufficient? If anything, it is reduced. The figure for 1998 was greater than that for 1999. Does he agree it needs to be increased?

Ms Clune

I am disappointed that expenditure on the environment is so low. The Minister is responsible for the area, yet the spend is about one fifth of total departmental expenditure. It is important we recognise our environment is being degraded. A recent EPA report on the quality of drinking water and fresh water has shown a deterioration in quality and an increase in the incidence of coliform and other elements in the water. I would like to see much more investment in the area because it will take many years to repair the damage done. We should also implement procedures to stop it.

The Minister stated that it is not clear if EU funding will be available for this area in future. I agree and am concerned about what we will do next year. From where will funding come? Most of the funding this year for water and sewerage schemes comes from the Cohesion and Structural Funds. The Minister said he is examining the possibility of public-private partnerships. I am concerned about whether they will work. There have been media reports about them and, while I know that is only media speculation, I am nonetheless concerned. I would like something concrete and definite in this area because the programmes are very expensive. They are major engineering works which cost a great deal of money. Water and sewerage treatment programmes will need a great deal of investment if there is to be a return to the original quality of water.

Waste management is in a similar situation. Some £5 million is allocated which mostly goes to EU co-financed projects. That will not go very far towards dealing with the deficit in waste management. There was a recent debate in the Dáil on this. Most local authorities have waste management plans but they have not been implemented. There has been little change with 92 per cent of waste being dealt with in landfill sites, many of which are not engineered, are just an extension of the old dumps and have environmental problems. We recycle only 8 per cent of our waste which is a very low figure, one of the lowest in the EU.

I do not know what direction we are heading. There is no investment and we have lost funding for a waste to energy plant in Dublin, which is a major gap in the infrastructure in this area and there is nothing to replace it. Many of the proposals made include incineration which is costly. Engineered landfill would certainly cost more than £5 million. The future of our waste management is hazy. We are likely to lose EU funding despite the fact that, like water and sewerage treatment schemes, waste management is very expensive and needs a high level of investment.

Subhead D2.2 deals with air quality and I am disappointed that the Estimate was reduced this year. This issue should not have slipped to a lower placing on the environmental agenda. The fumes and emissions from increased traffic in urban areas has deteriorated air quality. I would have preferred the moneys in this area to have been increased so that there would be monitoring of air quality in all urban areas.

The Minister said he is increasing funding for environmental awareness. Where stands ENFO? It is a wonderful service in Dublin but there is no service throughout the country for increasing environmental awareness. The Minister is responsible for many libraries throughout the country. I would like if he would expand ENFO nationally so that it would have a stand in every library in the country. It provides an important service in promoting environmental awareness by giving people information about what they can do in their own little ways to protect the environment. However, it is stuck in Dublin and does not reach other areas of the country.

There were a few comments that the condition of roads is off the agenda and that not much attention is paid to it now. Much attention has been given to this but it is still a burning issue with public pressure groups in city areas which have not benefited from the local road programme. Some areas of Cork city, as the Minister of State can confirm, have not been resurfaced for up to 40 years, since the estates were originally built. Roads are in an appalling state and people in those areas would benefit from an improvement in them. Bits of tarmacadam have been used to patch the potholes left from gas main or waterworks activity and this has contributed to a deterioration in the environment of the neighbourhood. The mileage is not as great in county areas but this is a burning issue in the local authority area where I canvassed in recent few weeks.

Chairman

The Minister and Ministers of State will now reply without interruption.

Mr. Gilmore

Can we ask questions?

Mr. Dempsey

We will respond by answering questions already raised and then we can get back to the timetable.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. D. Wallace)

I do not accept that the EPA is under-resourced. We recognise that its brief is extremely wide and Governments since its establishment in 1993 have maintained an orderly and progressive build-up of resources, both human and financial. The EPA now has 184 staff members, including directors. Its total budget in 1999, including its own resources, will be in excess of £12 million. It has produced major reports on the quality of water generally from 1995 to 1997. It will shortly publish a draft hazardous waste management plan and it is actively involved in integrated pollution licensing and waste licensing. Next year it will publish a second state of the environment report. The EPA has a good record with its agenda and is visibly working at national and regional levels. I am sure all Members agree with that. We are committed to its continued success and its strongly authoritative voice for environmental protection.

Deputy Killeen mentioned ground water and I have noted his comments on ground water, septic tanks and pollution. The recent water quality report from the EPA confirmed that ground water quality is generally high and there is not widespread pollution. Among initiatives taken so far this year are the new regulations we made in February. These introduce controls over discharges of certain dangerous substances through ground water by sanitary authorities in new guidelines produced jointly by my Department, the EPA and the Geological Survey of Ireland to assist local authorities in the protection of ground water protection. Deputy Clune stated that not enough is being spent to protect the environment but this year will see the biggest spend ever, when £275 million will be spent in the area of environmental protection. That is a 50 per cent increase on last year and a 100 per cent increase on the previous year.

There is a commitment from the Government on this issue. We have debated this in Private Members' time and in Question Time. ENFO was mentioned also and that body is very successful. The large numbers of people, especially schoolchildren, who visit ENFO prove that point. I agree that we should perhaps look at expanding it. It has a website which colleges and schools can use to link up with the body very quickly.

I welcome Deputy Duke's comments on the recent litter campaign. None of us doubts that litter pollution is an unnecessary and expensive problem; we must get rid of the litter culture. Huge resources are being devoted to this area. People regularly point to the success of other countries. However, they do not have an instant solution. Deputy Gilmore recently said in the Dáil that if someone drops litter they should have to pick it up. They should not drop the litter in the first place. We are pursuing this matter and increased resources are being devoted to it. Deputies have figures before them which show how the anti-litter campaign is being pursued. We have a national monitoring agency which can link up with local authorities to try to identify litter black spots where action is needed.

We also have an increased number of litter wardens. In 1997 there were 29 full time wardens. At the end of 1998 there were 61 full time wardens. There were 56 part time wardens in 1997 and there are now 144. We had 146 prosecutions from January to June 1997 and we had 396 in the second half of last year. The number of convictions has also risen and almost 4,500 on the spot fines were issued. Progress is being made. We have already set a national litter and pollution monitoring body in place but the Minister is also setting up a body to involve local authorities, industry, commerce and the Tidy Towns organisation. I accept we have a long way to go to solve this problem but I have met every local authority manager and his or her staff to impress upon them their responsibilities regarding the enforcement of the litter laws.

Recently I was criticised in the Dáil for not policing local authorities. We have outlined local government reform and devolving powers to local authorities. If we give power to local authorities they will have to take responsibility. We cannot have it both ways with a police state, waving a big stick at a county manager and telling him what to do. There was much discussion of the Litter Act, which was good legislation, but it does not give the Minister the power to deal with local authorities. We wrote to each local authority for its litter plans and the vast majority replied with their plans. We have pursued them for information about fines and statistics and we are receiving that information but it has been a long process for me and my officials to ensure local authorities comply. However, the legislation does not allow us to tell them what to do.

I take the point that we have a long way to go but we are making progress. Some local authorities are very proactive. The Minister and I have toured the country and met people in schools and colleges, for example, who are doing tremendous work. The An Taisce campaign which was assisted by the Department and the private sector was also a huge success and more than 1,700 applicants throughout the country participated. However, that is a once off measure and we must build on it. We can make progress by working together but we need to look seriously at this to see where improvements can be made.

Mr. Molloy

Many points were raised. I am well aware of the urgent housing problem. I have made my awareness of that problem known from the day I sat here with the Minister, when we were negotiating a programme for Government for our respective political parties. We brought the matter of house prices and the huge increase in the demand for houses to the table. Urgent action had not been taken by the then Government to deal with this. New property had not been acquired. No new initiatives were taken to facilitate a major expansion of the levels required. We are entering a new era arising from the phenomenal economic boom. One of the challenges facing the Government in sustaining the boom is to provide adequate homes and housing as increasing numbers of people will be looking for homes. We recognise this fact and have been trying to catch up with the situation.

I do not mind whether we call this a crisis or a major housing need or problem. The market will take advantage of a situation in which it is out of balance. It is critical that we restore market balance and we can only do so by increasing supply. We are producing 1,000 new houses each week. No other country is able to produce so many new houses - our housing output is three of four times higher. This is a credit to the house building industry which is under tremendous pressure to meet the demand. However, we have to be careful that standards are not compromised and that we do not get poor quality workmanship because of the availability of work and the pressure to build new homes quickly. We must keep this issue under careful consideration. The industry is facing a huge challenge to further increase output.

The Government has taken a number of initiatives as regards social housing. Some of these initiatives are funded by the Exchequer and some are non-voted funding. The Deputy queried why the Estimates did not refer to one such initiative. The affordable housing scheme would not be mentioned in these Estimates as it was introduced in March or April and is non-voted funding. The Housing Finance Agency's services are being utilised to provide funding to people seeking to avail of the affordable housing scheme; I have named some of the local authorities which have sought to avail of the scheme. One of the important aspects of the scheme is that local authorities are being encouraged to use land they already have for this purpose, and to sell houses whose building they organise without taking any profit, other than a percentage administrative cost.

Where necessary, local authorities are also being encouraged to purchase land. The interest on the money borrowed to purchase such land will be carried by the Exchequer so there is no excuse for local authorities not acquiring land where they have the opportunity to do so. Councillors should play an active role in promoting the affordable housing scheme, in looking at their development plans, the land zoned for development and land which could be zoned for development. Newly elected councillors should examine the potential of the affordable housing scheme with a view to building up a substantial land bank in their local authority area to facilitate the building of affordable houses and social houses.

The Department is not in the business of organising the building of houses, the planning, purchasing land, tendering and so on. These matters are handled through the local authority system and that is how we intend to continue. Councils are the housing authorities. The Department lays down the policy and provides the funding, the help and the guidance through the HFA, the National Building Agency and other State agencies. I sometimes wonder whether more should be done by elected councillors and officials at local level when I see an allocation of 600 housing starts to an authority such as Dublin Corporation where Members and councillors publicly decry the small number of new starts being permitted for local authority housing. However, when I allocate a substantial increase to Dublin Corporation, I receive a request asking me to permit the corporation to divert 200 of those new starts to some other purpose. We need to look at this more carefully.

Chairman

The Minister of State is being called away.

Mr. Gilmore

There were one or two areas to which I did not refer. I agree with Deputy Clune's comments on roads in urban areas. To some extent the non-national roads programme was biased against urban areas because the criteria used for the allocation of money, based on agricultural, industrial and tourist purposes and so on, almost by definition excluded urban areas. There is a huge problem in urban areas and housing estates. The road network is used by a large number of people and needs to be looked at.

In preparing next year's Estimates, will the Minister considering including a subhead in the roads programme specifically for road safety measures? There is a necessity to earmark some funding in the roads programme for the provision of pedestrian crossings, safe pedestrian routes for children going to school and a whole range of such facilities. There is great carnage, loss of life and injuries on the roads. In preparing the roads programme we have concentrated too much on the physical structure of the roads and on traffic movement. We need to give some consideration to road safety measures.

The traffic counts used for the provision of finance for pedestrian crossings and such measures are far too high. There are long stretches of roads in built up areas on which traffic travels at high speed. Many elderly people cannot cross the road on which they live unless they walk half a mile to a set of traffic lights. Future Estimates should include road safety provisions so that money is allocated from the roads programme to local authorities for road safety measures such as pedestrian crossings and other facilities which make roads safer, particularly for pedestrians, the elderly and children.

Chairman

That is a good idea.

Mr. Hayes

Would the Minister like to reply and then I will make my contribution?

Mr. Dempsey

Deputy Dukes commented that he did not think the non-national roads programme would achieve its targets or be completed on time. The indications are that the increased funding made available in 1999 will allow county councils to undertake all the 1999 and 2000 restoration improvement schemes included in their multi-annual programmes. Fifteen counties have reached their 2002 programmes. The indications are that local authorities will reach the target by 2005. Schemes to complete the restoration programme by 2005 have been drawn up by the local authorities themselves. I am satisfied that the programme will achieve its aims, although it must be kept under review.

On the points raised by Deputies Clune and Gilmore, I have been conscious of the issue of non-national roads, particularly urban roads, since I took up office. Perhaps if Deputy Gilmore had been in the Labour Party when he was in Government he might have had greater influence on Deputy Howlin who originally drew up the scheme. I am conscious of the need for greater attention to be given to urban roads. I accept that the scheme, as originally drafted, is biased towards county roads. The biggest single reason for the emphasis on country roads relates to their usage for agricultural purposes. The roads must also be built in specified lengths. Perhaps Deputy Dukes is unaware that the architectural planning legislation is currently on Report Stage in the Dáil.

State grants for urban roads have increased from £10 million in 1995 to almost £22 million this year, representing an increase of 120 per cent. The 1999 figure represents an increase of almost 44 per cent on the initial 1999 allocations. The figure for urban roads in 1997 was £11 million so that has been doubled in the past two years.

I am not satisfied that some of the corporation areas have made good use of the roads funding. Councillors may not be aware that increased sums of money have been made available specifically for road improvements and restoration. I want to convey the message to all new councillors that it is necessary to drive this programme in urban areas as funding has been made available for it. I am not sure local people are obtaining value for the 100 per cent increase in funding. Perhaps we are unaware of some of the planning which is under way and will witness its fruits in the next few years.

Deputy Dukes asked a specific question about subhead C.3 which deals with vehicle and driver licencing expenses. He is correct in his assumption that the benefits of motor tax now flow to local authorities. We believe it is appropriate that local authorities should defray all collection costs. For that reason, all departmental expenditure on motor tax collection is recouped as appropriations-in-aid under subhead G.9. It is something of a contra-entry.

Deputy Dukes also asked whether the polluter-pays principle would be applied to the non-domestic sector and, if so, how that would be done. It is applied to water and waste water services. Large commercial and industrial users of these services are charged on a meter or flat rate basis by local authorities as part of the service charges/commercial rates. The principle is also applied by securing contributions from industrial and commercial users of waste water and water services to part-finance the capital costs of providing them with a new infrastructure. There is a provision for reduced capital grants by the Department at rates of between 25 to 40 per cent of the cost for water and waste water projects which are directed solely or primarily at providing services to commercial, industrial and residential users of new infrastructure, for example, the serviced land initiative.

The provisions of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts, 1977 and 1990, provide for a discharge licensing system, fines for unlicensed discharges to waters and the payment of costs incurred in investigating, mitigating or remedying the effects of a discharge. It is accepted within the Department that there is a certain lack of transparency in the system which should be more scientifically based. We are currently considering the issue and documents are being prepared on it. There are proposals to put a new system in place which will be more transparent and scientifically based and which will ensure that the polluter pays principle applies equally across the board. We hope to have that in place by the end of the year. Obviously, such systems should be discussed with the European Commission to ensure that everything is in order from an EU perspective.

Various criticisms are raised about fire safety and the use of second hand appliances. This issue is a hardy annual in many respects. I am not aware of any case in which fire service appliances were inadequate for the jobs for which they were intended. It is the mechanical suitability of vehicles, not their age, which is important. No suggestions have been made that there was a failure to respond to calls because of inadequate equipment.

The purchase and maintenance of appliances is a matter for local authorities. The Department offers assistance through the provision of capital grants towards expenditure, whether that is incurred through the purchase of equipment, appliances or the provision of new fire stations. The Department does not have any policy to the effect that second hand appliances must be purchased. That is entirely a matter for the local authorities and fire authorities themselves. Over the years, fire authorities have purchased second hand appliances to meet the requirements of the fire services and the Department has been happy to provide grant assistance to allow them to meet particular needs. However, local authorities must be satisfied that the purchases represent value for money and are suitable for the purposes for which they are intended.

I acknowledge, as I have in the past, that An Bord Pleanála has been operating under very extreme and difficult circumstances in recent years. Huge pressure is being experienced due to the vast increase in appeals. The time performance is not satisfactory to me, to those who have lodged appeals or to the board. We have responded quickly and positively to all the initiatives proposed or requested by the board. All staffing proposals have been approved. The budget has been increased substantially. After approving staffing, there was a difficulty in obtaining qualified planning staff. We had to advertise in the UK and succeeded in obtaining qualified staff from there. We have in place a new system of bonus overtime for inspectors. This proposal is being negotiated with the staff representatives. We have taken on extra fee per case inspectors. An Bord Pleanála has carried out a range of measures. Unfortunately approval for extra staff was not availed of as quickly as we would have liked because of the shortage of staff which existed.

Deputy Dukes objected to a motion to increase the number of members appointed to An Bord Pleanála. I ask his colleagues to request him to withdraw that objection. I will not have any problem coming back to this committee or going into the Dáil to discuss An Bord Pleanála. If this resolution is not passed prior to the summer recess, it will be early next year before this will take place.

Mr. Hayes

Does it require legislation?

Mr. Dempsey

There is a resolution before the House to increase the number of board members from nine to ten. We have already increased this in the legislation. I know Deputy Dukes does not want to delay the issue. I have no objection to a discussion here or in the Dáil about the performance of An Bord Pleanála. I ask Deputies to request their colleague to withdraw his objection to the motion so that the process can continue. It will take three to four months to appoint someone because we must again seek nominations.

The geographical coverage of the new car testing services is an example of a public-private partnership. The private sector now has full responsibility for the operation of this scheme. The location of car test centres rests with the successful contractor. We cannot now start giving them directions. The national car testing centre has already announced its intention to have 43 test centres, including three mobile centres, throughout the country. The specification in the tender documents, which were issued by the Department and largely drawn up by my predecessor, although finalised by me, require a desirable standard of coverage for the new service. That is 90 per cent of car owners should be within 30 miles of a test centre and the test centre should be largely located on national roads. The proposals of the contractors, which was one of the criteria used in choosing the contractors, was met by the successful tenderer. It might have been possible to prescribe a higher level of service in terms of geographical coverage but that would have cost implications for all car owners using the services. It was a case of striking a balance between the cost for the individual car owner and a reasonable spread. This is something which will be kept under review.

Deputy Killeen asked about allocations from the local government fund and how these will be paid during the course of the year. The up-to-date information will be supplied to the Deputy. The ultimate aim is that the money allocations to the various local authorities will be paid on a needs and resource basis. This will be more scientifically based. It will be a number of years before we reach that point. We have an initial draft of the needs and resource study carried out in Galway and we are working with other local authorities on refining this.

On the planning tribunal, fees for the tribunal are fixed between the Attorney General and the Department of Finance. Our only choice is to pay the bills as they arrive.

Mr. Hayes

We might get a supplementary estimate.

Mr. Dempsey

That is quite possible.

Deputy Clune raised the question of the requirements for sewerage schemes. Deputy Dukes said that the answers he received previously were evasive. Most of what we are doing is in the public domain so his comment that we were being evasive is not justified. I do not have an interest in being evasive about the requirements for investment in infrastructure. It suits me better to be up front about the problems we face and the needs we have, particularly in relation to water quality and sewage treatment, in order to try to secure the maximum amount of finance. Our priorities for sewage treatment schemes are first determined by the EU Waste Water Treatment Directive. This sets out a clear hierarchy of priorities with size thresholds related to the period 2000-2005. We have submitted a programme of proposals to meet our obligations to the Commission. That document is publicly available for everyone to see. All schemes required by the Deputy are being moved forward, either through planning or construction. We are not simply complying with the directive. If the schemes are required in smaller centres, and can be justified, I am prepared to seek funding for them. The recent rural towns and villages initiative is an indication of my commitment in that area. In excess of 80 schemes submitted to the Department by way of demand from local authorities have recently been given the go ahead together with a doubling of the water and sewerage services programme announced earlier. My aim is to ensure that these services in every town and village will be treated as quickly as possible.

Deputy Clune spoke about waste management and 'the polluter pays' principle. Deputy Dukes also raised the issue. We made a mistake with the Waste Management Act. I was in opposition when the Waste Management Act, 1996 was going through. There was great emphasis on having local authorities deliver the waste management services, which I supported at the time. It is now clear that if we were to do all we would like in relation to re-use, recycling, waste prevention and minimisation, we would not be able to do so on the basis of each local authority looking after its own waste. If you want to talk about re-use, recycling, composting and waste minimising then we have to talk about scale. The only solution to the waste management problem will be found in regional rather than local authority. When we were debating the Bill previously there was a scare campaign which stated that dumps would be located everywhere. It was for that reason and for political reasons that we said we would keep it small and leave it with the local authority. It is clear, however, that it will not work and that is why we published the document Changing Our Ways. It is also the reason we emphasised that we are moving away from landfill and examining alternatives. I have listened to people who claim to be Greens for a long time. They told us to reduce our dependence on landfill but they are not prepared to look at alternatives. Most of us who live in the real world know that alternatives have to examined, particularly on a regional basis. We must do that and the Government will assist in any way it can.

We have returned to the polluter pays principle and it is at the heart of waste management and our policy statement. From what I have heard in Brussels and elsewhere it is clear that we will not get assistance towards a waste management policy if we do not apply the polluter pays principle. Local authorities that do not charge for waste management and their refuse collection services must face the fact that they will experience increasing difficulties.

Deputy Clune referred to future funding for water services. Major investment is needed and it will be reflected in our development plan 2000-6. Cohesion Funds will be reduced and that is already happening. We intend to make up for that by Exchequer and public/private partnerships. We also want to deliver on the targets we have set for urban waste water and other areas. I am satisfied that we will have the finance to maintain and increase the current programme of water services.

A member asked whether the sites provided by the service land initiative will be affordable. One of the reasons some people cannot afford sites and houses in Dublin and other regions is that supply does not meet demand. The idea behind the service land initiative is that we will have a good supply of serviced land which will be zoned and made available for housing. We aim to increase the supply to meet the demand and rebalance the housing market.

The strategy on road safety set out a detailed implementation scheme for 1998 to 2002. It is being implemented and monitored by the higher level group on road safety whose first report will be published next month. Under the road safety strategy the National Roads Authority is obliged to implement 400 road improvements within a five year period. The authority is on course to deliver those improvements. For some years the NRA has highlighted road safety and this year it has spent almost £9 million on that programme.

Deputies Gilmore and Clune referred to pedestrian crossings in relation to high traffic counts. We should carefully examine this issue because the requirement is extraordinarily high in certain areas. I can assure the Deputies that I will bring this issue to the group's attention.

Mr. Hayes

The Minister's reply was a tour de force and one which I may not be able to follow.

It is unfortunate that the Minister and Opposition spokespersons cannot fully engage in the Estimates debate while the Report Stage of the Bill is being dealt with in the Dáil. A certain amount of tic-tac takes place and it is not fair to everyone concerned. The Chairman might raise this issue at a meeting of the committee chairmen.

Unfortunately we have not been able to have a full bodied debate on housing. The Minister argues that the way to rebalance the market is to increase supply. I agree with him fundamentally but if we radically increase supply it will leave an immense affordability gap between those who earn an average income of £16,500 in Dublin or £15,000 in Galway or Cork. These people will still be unable to purchase a home. The argument as purported by my party in Opposition is that we need to increase supply. We need to ensure additional houses come onstream and meet the demand because too many people are chasing too few houses. At the end of that process there will still be an affordability gap that must be breached by other measures to which I referred earlier. They directly relate to a greater onus and responsibility being placed on builders and developers who have done well in the past number of years. They would have to provide and reserve a percentage of all new homes for people with modest incomes. This is not an unreasonable suggestion. This measure has succeeded in Britain since they enacted the Town and Country Act, 1990. If the Government wants to deal with the housing problem it should put this suggestion centre stage. We will not solve the housing crisis by only increasing supply.

The second argument my party put forward in this Estimates debate related to the small amount of resources put at the disposal of the Department of the Environment and Local Government to reduce local authority housing lists which is the heart of the problem. I am not satisfied with the Government's response today to the overall funding made available for the national house building programme. I quoted the total percentage of the capital spend on the programme and my figures have not been disputed. It is unfortunate that the Government is not investing more money in programmes during this housing crisis.

I listened carefully to the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, when he spoke about his frustration at some local authorities because they are not advancing the house building programme as well as he would wish. If he is dissatisfied with Dublin Corporation, Cork County Council or any other local authority he should change the rules. Over eight months ago Dublin Corporation put forward the idea that there should be one unified housing agency in all of Dublin because there is a duplication of functions in South Dublin County Council, Fingal County Council, Dún Laoighaire/Rathdown and Dublin Corporation. Do we need a unified housing authority to deal with the housing crisis? If the Minister is frustrated by Dublin Corporation and other local authorities then he should say it. If we have to change the rules let the Government and the Minister lead the debate.

The Minister said he asked county councillors to impress upon their local authorities, if they were elected, the desirability of land acquisition. It is fundamentally impossible for local authorities in the Dublin area to acquire land at present due to the exorbitant costs involved. Perhaps the officials present could pass on my comments to the Minister. That must be addressed. If they cannot afford to purchase land they will not be able to build the houses, even if they are for the affordable housing scheme or the public housing scheme. They do not have the resources available to do that because of the cost of land. I impress that upon the Minister and the housing section of the Department. Local authorities in Dublin face a fundamental problem because their land bank has diminished in recent years and they cannot buy private land within the county because the cost is prohibitive.

Perhaps the Minister and Government will consider allowing local authorities to use their capital accounts to build houses. I have asked the Department to provide me with figures for the amount which exists in the capital accounts of the four local authorities in Dublin. I understand the figure is in the region of £53 million in total. Now is the time for local authorities to build houses and nothing should be put in their way if such difficulties exist.

Much of the recent industrial dispute within the fire service concerned the issue of pay but many of those in the fire service also feel that their vehicles and appliances are not up to scratch. That inspired the industrial dispute in the Dublin area in particular, where there has been a mushrooming of housing estates without the services which would be found in other areas of the State.

This side of the House is not in favour of this Estimate because it does not deal specifically with the housing crisis which we face.

Mr. Dempsey

Like Deputy Hayes, I feel that it is regrettable that the two items of business should happen at the one time. It should be avoided.

Housing is an issue which has exercised the mind of the Minister, the Minister of State and the Department. It is being given a huge amount of attention within the Department. It annoys me that commentators will often pick our latest initiative and take it in total isolation, saying that it will not solve the housing crisis. They are right but they are the only people who suggest that we think it will solve the housing crisis. We have taken a total of 40 different actions across the board to address the housing problem. If we were to take the same blinkered view as the commentators, we would have a huge problem, greater even than that which we currently face.

There has been an increase in Exchequer provision for the housing programme by a third in recent years; a 21 per cent increase in local authority and social housing programmes this year; and an increase of £36 million for local authority housing specifically. Extra starts have been announced and £27.5 million made available to Dublin Corporation for the redevelopment of Ballymun and the inner city Dublin flat complexes, the capital assistance scheme has been increased by up to 67 per cent since the Minister of State took office, additional provision has been made for local authority hostel accommodation for the homeless, a figure of £20 million was recouped for the homeless and asylum seekers, a task force on spending for housing aid for the elderly was established, the serviced land initiative set up and a huge range of improvements to the grant schemes has been made to give an effective overall response to the housing crisis rather than focusing on an area here or there.

It is the Government's intention under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill to make provision to allow local authorities to ensure a proper social mix in housing developments.

Mr. Hayes

Will that be mandatory?

Mr. Dempsey

It will be a provision in the Act, so it will be statutory.

Mr. Hayes

Under the 1982 planning legislation, the Minister is entitled to give general directives from time to time, as was done in relation to out of town supermarkets. Why does the Minister not do that with regard to a fixed percentage of all housing? Why does it require legislation when the power already exists under a general directive by the Minister to tell local authorities to provide social housing on all new housing estates?

Mr. Dempsey

The general directive does not involve constitutional difficulties in relation to property rights and ownership. Provisions have been made for social and affordable housing in the UK for some time. The emphasis there is on a housing mix. We have a written Constitution which protects property rights. Anything we do would have to be soundly based in law. That is the route we intend going, to have it in law.

Mr. Hayes

But it will not be mandatory.

Mr. Dempsey

If it is in law, it will allow a local authority to asses its own needs in relation to affordable housing.

Mr. Hayes

That is currently the case.

Mr. Dempsey

No. There was an appeal recently where the provision of affordable housing was challenged. An Bord Pleanála ruled the provision out because there is no legal basis for it.

Mr. Hayes

I am right when I say that some local authorities have already established this percentage in their development plans. Is the Minister saying that those recent provisions are unlawful as a result of that case?

Mr. Dempsey

No. In the case which was appealed to An Bord Pleanála there was no provision for it. We are endeavouring to remove any doubt that a local authority will have the power to do that. If it had been included in the development plan, An Bord Pleanála might not have ruled it out but if it is not based in law it will be challenged. I want to give a statutory basis to local authorities being able to do this in their development plans.

Mr. Hayes

Will the Minister not tell them to do it?

Mr. Dempsey

No. I have a fundamental view on local government. Following the recent local elections, we have a well informed body of local authority members. If they do not know the problems of their local areas, I cannot prescribe mandatory procedures. The problem of house prices is particularly acute in Dublin, in other areas it is serious and in some areas there is no problem in that regard. A mandatory solution, therefore, would not be helpful. The support of the law should be available in any area where local authority members feel it is necessary. That is what we aim to do.

The question of the lack of serviced land in the Dublin Corporation area was raised. Large expanses of land are not available in the area but Dublin Corporation recently purchased 35 acres in Malahide to meet some of its housing needs. Imaginative solutions are called for. Higher density proposals which will shortly be finalised will assist in this regard. Housing is one of the major areas of funding in my Department. Local government and the environment are also substantial programmes. I have endeavoured to obtain as large a proportion of Exchequer funding as possible and I have been successful in doing so in recent years. My Department's major task is to meet the infrastructural needs of the economy and I have no doubt that in this year's Estimates campaign, funding will be gained for the provision of top quality services for the people.