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.