The Clerk to the committee has circulated the draft time allocation for the meeting. Do members have any comments on it?
Estimates for Public Services, 2001.
Vote 25 - Department of the Environment and Local Government (Supplementary).
The Opposition spokespersons should be afforded the same time facility for opening remarks as the Minister.
I agree.
We will be reasonable to the Deputy.
I thank the Chairman.
We will be more than reasonable.
Chairman, if I take only two minutes, the Opposition will dump on us.
That would not be reasonable.
I welcome the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, to the meeting and I am delighted that he is back in full health after his recent illness. I also welcome the officials from the Department of the Environment and Local Government: Ian Keating, finance officer; Terry Allen, water services; John Fitzgerald, local government finance; Liam Whelan, waste management; Edel O'Dea, road policy; David Smith, departmental finance; and Vincent Lowe, departmental finance. I call on the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, to make his opening remarks.
The officials accompanying me are from the finance section of my Department rather than from the Department of Finance. Hopefully, big brother is not watching us at the moment. This Supplementary Estimate is further evidence of the priority which the Government attaches to the provision of the infrastructure required to maintain and build upon the economic progress of recent years. Overall, the Supplementary Estimate of £205 million - €260 million - represents an increase of about 9% on the net expenditure provision in my Department's Revised Estimate. It will fund the provision of an additional £95 million - €121 million - for the national road network, £63 million - €80 million - for the water and waste water services programme and £55 million - €70 million - for the Exchequer contribution for the local government fund. These increases which amount to £213 million - €270 million - will be partially offset by savings of £8 million - €10 million - arising on the capital provision for waste management. This leaves a net requirement of £205 million - €260 million - for which I am seeking a Supplementary Estimate this year. The limited time available will not permit me to speak in detail on the different items for which I am seeking additional funding. However, the committee will have an opportunity to debate the individual items and I look forward to discussing with it the progress being made on the infrastructural and other programmes concerned.
Significant progress has been recorded in 2001 on many major road schemes mandated in the national development plan including the M1 northern motorway - Drogheda bypass; M1 Cloghran-Lissenhall; N6 Aughrim-Cappataggle; N7 Kildare bypass; N8 Watergrasshill bypass; N11 Glen of the Downs; and N18 Newmarket-on-Fergus bypass. Major projects completed in 2001 include M1 Dunleer-Dundalk; N4 McNead's Bridge-Mullingar, the Downs; N15 Stranorlar-Ballybofey-Donegal; the N20, N25 and M50 southern cross route. Major projects which commenced in 2001 include M1 Dublin port tunnel; N4 Enfield relief road; N5 Strokestown-Longford; N7 Limerick southern ring road phase 1; N8 Cashel by-pass and M50 south eastern motorway.
This unprecedented level of activity, together with the following factors, has resulted in higher than anticipated levels of expenditure which have necessitated this Supplementary Estimate of €121 million. Major projects completed in 2001 indicate an excess of outturn over allocation of €36.31 million which arises principally because settlement of final accounts on N20 Patrickswell Limerick and M50 southern cross are now anticipated before the end of 2001. Major Projects continuing in 2001 show an excess of outturn over allocation of €28.4 million due entirely to higher than anticipated output on the M1 Cloghran-Lissenhall and Drogheda by-pass schemes. While road construction inflation is inevitably having some impact the National Roads Authority is satisfied that, compared to 2000, an increase in the order of 40% in road construction output will be achieved this year. The national development plan provides a clear strategy for the development of our national road network to the high standard necessary to support continuing economic and social development and to facilitate regional development. The expanded scale of the national road investment programme also makes it possible to plan for the development of the road network in a more integrated manner than has been possible up to now. The challenge now is to implement the strategy.
The use of private finance will play an increasingly important role in the delivery of our road investment programme. The national development plan and the economic and social infrastructure operational programme provide that public private partnerships, PPP, will be relied upon to provide at least €1.27 billion of the €6 billion estimated to be required to improve and maintain the national road network. The rationale for this PPP approach, based on user tolling, is to generate additional resources for national roads, to promote greater efficiency in constructing and maintaining relevant projects and to allow the projects concerned to be provided more quickly than would otherwise be the case. The NRA is now progressing the PPP approach, which is on target to deliver the planned projects within the period to 2006. Some eleven roads projects have been announced by the NRA to be procured on a PPP basis involving user tolls.
The present national development plan provides for expenditure of almost €3.8 billion on water and sewerage services, three times the outturn under the previous national plan. Not only will this underpin the Government's continuing commitment to strengthening our infrastructure and facilitating economic development, it will also protect our natural resources and assist compliance with relevant legislation and EU directives. This year I am seeking an additional €80 million for capital investment in the water and waste water services programme. The expected outturn on the programme for 2001 is €500 million which represents an increase of some 18% on the corresponding figure for last year. The additional Exchequer expenditure will be incurred on the major schemes element of the programme. Expenditure of this level is evidence of the progress being achieved under the new three-year strategy I announced last year and the level of investment required to maintain momentum in the programme. A number of significant schemes have been substantially completed under the new programme including Drogheda, Dundalk, Leixlip, Osberstown and Loughrea sewerage, Innismore water and Tuam regional water supply. In addition, a number of significant schemes have commenced construction including Wexford and Sligo main drainage, Crossmolina and Ballyheigue sewerage and Knock-Ballyhaunis water.
The bulk of expenditure this year is being incurred on a limited number of significant schemes. A number of very large waste water treatment projects required under the EU Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, are under way in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Galway. These four projects will account for about 50% of the outturn. The Dublin Bay project, which involves the construction of the largest waste water treatment facility in the EU at Ringsend, is at an advanced stage of construction. This project, which will collect and treat all waste water generated within Dublin city and surrounding areas, is expected to be completed in 2002. The plant will have the capacity to treat an average population equivalent of 1.64 million. The projected expenditure on this scheme alone is €114 million this year.
Substantial progress is being achieved under the increased investment in water and sewerage infrastructure. The additional water production capacity created in 2000 alone has equalled the annual daily requirements of a population of 309,000 - 36% of the corresponding figure for the entire 1994-1999 period. The increase in waste water treatment capacity in 2000 represented a population equivalent of 180,000 - almost half the entire 1994-1999 increase. I expect this output level to be maintained in future years with the completion of projects currently under way or planned.
Local government in Ireland has faced many challenges throughout its history in the sourcing of the necessary resources to provide and maintain an adequate level of service to the communities which it serves. The local government fund was established to redress this situation and to provide local authorities with a source of funding specifically geared to their needs and, in turn, the needs of those who avail of their services. The fund, which was introduced by the Government in 1999, has placed local authority finances on a firm footing for the first time in many decades. It is already delivering significant additional resources to local authorities which are being used to meet the demands placed upon them by a society with diverse and expanding requirements. The fund has provided local authorities with a guaranteed source of income since its establishment, and its funding base has been steadily increased annually.
This year some €923 million has been made available to the fund to finance the cost of the various local authority services that must be provided at local level. These services range from the building of roads, current expenditure on housing maintenance and the operation of water and sewerage schemes to environmental, amenity and recreational projects. The fund has been provided with a firm basis in legislation and in this way a guarantee has been given by the Government to local authorities to take full account of any additional expenditure needs that are placed on them.
This year, the financial needs of local authorities have been placed under considerable pressure. Increased tender costs coupled with general inflationary pressures have resulted in local authorities' needs outweighing the resources available to them. The main areas giving rise to increasing demands on local authorities are the commitments contained in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness; increased provision for the improvement of non-national roads; additional costs in the operation and maintenance of water and sewerage facilities; and increased demands in the area of planning and development. In addition, local authorities had to meet the special 2% increase in pay under the PPF. This amounted to about €13 million and local authorities had not budgeted for this expenditure in their 2001 estimates.
The delivery of the National Development Plan, 2000-2006, will also require significant additional resources from local authorities. Under the plan, a total of €15.24 billion will be invested in infrastructural projects during the seven years of the plan. Local authorities have a significant part to play in its delivery and must be provided with the necessary funding with which to maintain and develop local infrastructure.
The local government fund has empowered local authorities for the first time with the discretion and confidence to carry out their functions and to plan for the future. In this way, local authorities will use their resources to maximum effect in providing a good quality service to the public and in carrying through the reforms in the local government sector which have been introduced under Better Local Government.
In recognition of the increased costs facing local authorities in 2000, a Supplementary Estimate of €38 million was provided. In this regard, it is essential that the integrity of the fund is maintained through the provision of the Supplementary Estimate for 2001 and that local authorities are placed on a more equitable financial footing to meet costs that arise.
The briefing note circulated to the committee outlines the reasons for the shortfall of €10 million in waste management expenditure. On a more positive note, following the enactment of the Waste Management (Amendment) Act, 2001, earlier this year, local authorities throughout the country have made their waste management plans and are gearing up to implement them. That will allow me to launch the waste management capital infrastructure grant scheme within the coming weeks, which will target investment towards the provision of recycling and recovery infrastructure as called for in the waste management plans. The scheme, which was delayed due to recent difficulties in waste management planning, will fund the provision of civic amenity sites, material recovery and recycling facilities and biological treatment facilities.
I draw the attention of the committee to a typographical error in Part II of the Supplementary Estimate. The phrase "The Total Original Net Estimate, 2000 was . . . " should read "The Total Original Net Estimate, 2001". I beg the indulgence of the committee to have that altered.
The need for better infrastructure is not disputed by any right-minded person. Our roads are the economic arteries of the country. Water services build capacity into the economy as well as protecting the environment and local authorities are State bodies which play a critical role in providing, operating and maintaining that infrastructure. For all these reasons, I commend the Supplementary Estimate to the committee.
We now know why the Estimates, which were published the week before last for the first time ever, do not have a column indicating the out-turn for 2001 and why the increases for next year were based on the allocation for last year rather than on the out-turn. If they had shown the out-turn, the percentage increases indicated for 2002 would have been infinitely less and the decreases infinitely more. That would have resulted in a massive outcry.
The Minister will be aware that everybody understands the necessity for infrastructural investment and that there must be no cutbacks in terms of the national development plan. Regardless of what is happening to the economy in the short-term, when the upturn comes it is essential that we will have continued our investment in infrastructure. The upturn will not come if we do not do that. The reality is that the NDP has been massively cut back and the Government is trying to hide that fact with funny accounting.
I do not mind being asked to vote additional money for infrastructural investment, but it breaks my heart that so much of this overrun is due not to the Government's commitment to infrastructural assessment but to incompetence and lack of resources towards the delivery of the NDP. I object to being misled into believing that the overrun is due to accelerated investment. The reality is that the cost overruns are due almost entirely to increased construction costs and land inflation. Many of the additional inflation costs are due to the failure of the planning process and the Minister's failure to do anything about it. An overrun of £95 million on the roads programme alone is phenomenal when one considers that since last May there has been no progress on 30 major projects due to the dispute with the farmers. If those projects had gone ahead, how much of an overrun would we be facing now?
I am not the only one to suggest that the lack of urgency on the part of the Government in solving the dispute with the farmers, which is holding up 30 projects, is not entirely due to an accident or a failure to reach a solution. The reality is that the delay in all those projects suits the Government. It allows it to cut back on the NDP while at the same time blaming somebody else. When those 30 projects finally come on stream, they will create further inflationary pressures and push up the costs.
The planning system is largely responsible for further overruns. The Minister introduced a Bill to streamline the planning process, but in reality he transferred responsibility for determining motorway and road orders to An Bord Pleanála without providing it with the resources. That will cause delays and many projects are now being postponed by An Bord Pleanála. The work on the famous Galway road, about which we heard so much, has been postponed twice by An Bord Pleanála because of a lack of resources to deal with the problem and next year's Estimate is down 13%. How is that consistent with streamlining the planning process and getting the road projects completed in the timeframe outlined? The delays in the resourcing of local government and the planning process cost money both directly and indirectly.
I do not know the reason for the overrun of £63 million in the cost of water and sewerage services. The Minister suggested it was due to accelerated development, but we have a strategic services land initiative in which much of this money is supposed to be invested. It produced a 50% increase in housing site capacity. In other words, half of what was envisaged was actually delivered. If it had been 100% successful, what would have been the overrun? This is all due to delays, time wasting, lack of resources and poor delivery. The Minister is spending the money, but he is not delivering the goods. The tragedy is that all the money and the accumulated surpluses over the past few years are now being flitted away in inflationary costs due to incompetence.
With regard to waste management, less money was spent than anticipated and again there was incompetence. The Minister has not shown any leadership in ensuring waste management projects are put in place. Some regions have not adopted waste management plans while others have. There is no industry to cater for recycling. There is no point in local authorities collecting material for recycling when all they can do with it is dump it in a landfill. There is no point allocating money to local authorities to build baling stations and recycling facilities. People had to wait for four years for planning permission from the EPA for such a facility in my local authority. How does the Minister expect to deliver any kind of waste management infrastructure when we have that type of planning process?
I wish to refer to the local government fund. Has this money been spent or allocated to local government? The country is dependent on local government to deliver the vast majority of the NDP. That is not happening and it will not happen under current circumstances. The Minister indicated a 3% increase for next year, but it is 3% of the figure originally allocated, which has gone up by 10%. Effectively this is a decrease not only in money terms but in real terms.
The Minister said much about the wonderful developments we will see in my local authority area under his better local government programme, but in reality it is not better local government. Salary increases in my local authority this year amounted to £5.5 million. He said there will be a 3% increase, but in money terms it does not amount to one penny extra; it is more funny money. When the Minister told the public there would be better local government at the time he negotiated the PPF, did he tell them they would pay for the lack of services in terms of reduced services? We need to fund the current expenditure necessary for local government. If a water or sewerage scheme is laid, there are energy costs involved in pumping the water or sewage and all those costs come out of ever decreasing local government allocations. Local government is coming apart at the seams. It has been turned by the local government process into a talking shop. Those involved are all running around like headless chickens and are completely unable to cope with the delivery of the NDP. Unless the Minister properly resources local government, there will be no NDP.
The Minister has wasted all the money allocated in the past four years on inflationary costs. That has happened due to incompetence and bad planning. The Minister got his Estimate wrong by 10% not because of the priority he gave to infrastructure but because of overruns due to his incompetence. I hope I will have an opportunity later to ask questions. I am furious that the Minister has wasted so much money and delivered so little, given all the media events he attended - laying bricks in a toilet in Crumlin or wherever - telling us that he was so concerned about the environment. The reality is the Minister is not delivering.
I echo Deputy Olivia Mitchell's comments and criticisms of the Minister's performance. The Estimate for the Department appears to be all over the place.
I wish to comment on the reduction in money for recycling. If there is one word in the English dictionary that has been most abused, particularly by the Minister and by Government public relations personnel and consultants, it is "recycling". The concept of recycling has been thrown at us for the entire four and a half years of the Minister's term of office. Official Government policy was launched with great public fanfare more than three years ago in the "Changing our Ways" document, which set down ambitious targets for recycling. We were to reach a 35% target nationally. Recycling of municipal waste was to be specific to regional waste management plans. For example, in Dublin the target for recycling was to be 60%.
There was an allocation of £11 million for recycling last year, but the Minister has told us it has not all been spent in that only £3 million of it has been spent on recycling activity. This Department has spent more money on public relations than it has spent on recycling. Nothing shows more clearly the failure of the Government's waste management policy or strategy, such as it is, than the Minister telling us in the last days of November that the £11 million allocated for recycling in 2001, which is small beer compared to the total NDP allocation of £650 million for waste management services overall, has not been spent. That shows clearly, as far as the Minister and Government are concerned, that recycling is nothing more than something to which lip service is paid. Fictional allocations are made for it at the beginning of the year and then they are not spent because the necessary infrastructure has not been put in place in the first instance.
In recent weeks local authorities have had to commence consideration of their annual estimates for the coming year without having available to them the allocation from the Department of the Environment and Local Government for the local government fund. There was an indication of a 3% increase, but to my knowledge the specific allocations to individual local authorities have not yet been made. When will those allocations be notified to individual local authorities? What is holding them up? How much will they be? The Minister talked about the local government fund empowering local authorities and enabling him to plan for the future. The local authorities cannot plan for the next 12 months because they do not know the allocation of money they will get from the local government fund. They need to be told that. We need to have a system in place that ensures local authorities do not have to consider their annual estimates for the next year without knowing the amount of that allocation.
Regarding recycling, the phrase "better local government" is the next most abused in the Minister's lexicon. Local government has got worse during his term of office.
Infinitely.
Any citizen who has contact with local authorities will tell one that the service provided to the public has dramatically deteriorated. Every service from answering the telephone, responses from town and county halls to routine inquiries, the delivery of standard routine local authority services such as road sweeping, refuse collection, park maintenance and so on have got worse all over the country. Local government is in a mess. It needs a serious overhaul and the allocation of serious resources. There is no point in throwing additional responsibilities at local authorities while they are being stripped of staff, many of whom are leaving to work in the private sector. In some cases there is natural movement of staff and personnel, but in many cases staff are leaving out of sheer frustration at the difficulty of working in the local government service. We have a big problem in local government and it is getting worse.
I have said previously that we, as a committee, need to examine the local government fund, which has been in existence since 1999. As the committee of the House charged with responsibility for overseeing the work of the Minister and his Department, and with the associated accountability function, we need to examine the local government fund and a number of issues relating to it. Two and a half years after the establishment of the fund it is time the committee looked at what has gone into it, where the money has gone and how it has been allocated. The committee should specifically address the method of allocation of funds to individual local authorities. As I understand it, there is a system for dividing the fund among the local authorities which is based on a needs and resources study that was undertaken by Galway County Council. That method of allocation seriously discriminates against urban authorities, particularly Dublin authorities. The Dublin city and county managers have already brought this to the attention of the Minister and the Department.
The social problems, traffic, planning, heritage conservation and other elements of an urban environment with which urban authorities, particularly those in Dublin, have to deal are not reflected in the way resources are allocated from the local government fund and I want the committee to address that. We should hold a special meeting to deal with it and I will seek that following today's discussion. The Minister should make arrangements for the committee to be briefed in detail by his officials on the fund and the way money is allocated from it.
The Supplementary Estimate is primarily concerned with infrastructure. I have no difficulty agreeing to additional resources being made available for the acceleration of infrastructure development. However, I am not convinced that we are looking at acceleration. It is clear that the national development plan is falling way behind schedule and that the targets set down for roads, environment and transport infrastructure will simply not be met. It is difficult to see, particularly in relation to the roads estimate, where this additional money is going.
According to the National Roads Authority, 30 of its projects have been delayed over the course of the past year by between five and 12 months, primarily as a result of the dispute with the Irish Farmers Association over entry onto land and partly as a result of the impact of foot and mouth disease. In a year when there has been so much delay with road projects, how have we ended up with the Minister seeking an extra £95 million for roadworks? He made passing reference to inflation in the construction industry, and perhaps he would amplify that. He should also tell us what the position is in relation to the dispute with the IFA. We are told that negotiations have been ongoing for several months between the IFA and the Department to resolve this issue. We hear rumours that agreements are close to being reached but it is time we were told the exact position and how much longer the development of the country's roads infrastructure will be delayed.
I am also curious about what will happen next year because, to an extent, we can only assess this Supplementary Estimate against that. What is the allocation for the National Roads Authority next year? How much did it seek and how much will it get? If there have been delays to the extent we have been told, that information would be highly relevant. Finally, I invite the Minister once more, although we have done this unsuccessfully on many occasions in the Dáil through questions to both the Minister and the Taoiseach, to outline the Government's policy on the tolling of roads. Is the Government in favour of placing tolls on the national primary road network? There is ambiguity about its policy on that issue.
I welcome the Minister. It would be remiss of me to let some of the Deputy's remarks go without comment. There has been massive investment in infrastructure recently and particularly in the roads infrastructure. That is evident if one travels throughout the country. It is continually being developed. I appeal to the IFA and the National Roads Authority to come to an immediate resolution of the land acquisition problem because it is creating huge difficulties for the economy.
There are inherent problems with regard to payment to landowners and they will have to be addressed. It is creating palpable anger among the landowners. I have encountered cases, about which I have made representations to the local authority, where 14 months have passed with the contracts in the possession of the local authorities while not a penny has been paid to the landowners. These are straightforward, non-confrontational cases where the price has been agreed but no money has been paid. That is building up frustration not only about the price of land but also the delays that occur between signing the contracts and final payment. While interest will be paid, it is not good enough. When a contract is signed, everything is checked out and the conveyance is straightforward, there should be no difficulties moving it to closure. However, at present it goes from the National Roads Authority to the county council's solicitor and repeatedly back and forth between them. That is unacceptable and will have to be addressed.
One of the biggest difficulties facing the national development plan comes from public representatives in certain areas with regard to waste management. There have been cases in Cork and elsewhere where public representatives led the charge in objecting to waste management facilities, transfer stations, baling stations and so forth. Name it and they will object to it. While they may be public representatives they should also be community and opinion leaders. That issue must be addressed. The waste management plan has been put in place. It had to be because the development of our waste management system was being jeopardised by objections and the lack of cohesive policy at local authority level. I am confident that with the Waste Management Act we will see the rolling out of the new strategy, which is most important.
There seems to be continuous difficulty with An Bord Pleanála, not only with its decisions but with the delays in making decisions. If the board is incapable of delivering, it should say so and we will address the issue in some other manner. It is amazing that a board can take 18 months to adjudicate on projects, which is unacceptable. If it is under resourced or simply unable to deal with these projects, we should take them from An Bord Pleanála and establish an independent body that can adjudicate on large-scale projects. Let An Bord Pleanála deal with housing and so forth.
If the board feels it is incompetent or incapable of adjudicating on large-scale infrastructural developments and it continually delays making decisions on them, the Dáil will have to address that. I feel strongly about this matter. There was a case in Cork recently where it took the board 14 months to make a decision and eventually it refused planning permission. That type of delay is unnecessary.
I have always supported the tolling of national primary roads. The philosophy behind it is positive. If one travels across Europe, one will see the benefits of it. We are always complaining we do not have a proper infrastructure, but that was because we did not have the resources. As a nation we are seen to be unwilling to accept that we must pay for delivering proper services. Most people would not have any difficulty paying a few pounds to drive from Cork to Dublin if they were on a dual carriageway or a motorway. It would be more efficient in terms of petrol and time and would help save lives and stop people from getting frustrated. I welcome the proposals by the National Roads Authority on tolling. They represent a positive step. Has the mindset of Departments, whether it is the Department of Finance or the Department of the Environment and Local Government, changed towards public/private partnerships? Are they now grudgingly accepted? As the economy continues to grow, although it may be slowing down at present/public partnerships must be encouraged. Do Departments genuinely embrace this concept or do they believe it undermines their role in supporting projects?
I thank the Minister for introducing the Supplementary Estimate. It is an indication of the Government's commitment, which is evident from driving on our roads.
As regards the £8 million which has not been spent in the past year on recycling or waste management initiatives, I fail to understand why the fact that waste management plans were not adopted prevented such money from being spent. Many authorities adopted waste management plans. I hope the money was intended to be spent on recycling initiatives, collection facilities or civic amenity sites. I fail to understand why that money was not spent. The progress made this year in that area is disappointing.
As regards the local government fund, I attended the estimates meeting of Cork Corporation. Some 54% of the budget for next year will be spent on salaries and wages, which is extremely high. This is an issue in all local authorities. We agreed to increase our service charges by approximately 35% to bring them up to £175 per household this year. We hope to get an increase in the contribution from the local government fund, and I am sure the Minister will receive many requests in that regard.
Where do local authorities stand in terms of the recent decision by the Supreme Court? There are individuals in my constituency who will advocate the non-payment of service charges. The Supreme Court decision means that if a person does not pay his or her service charges, the local authority is still obliged to collect the waste and to pursue the matter through the courts. That is crazy because it will tie up the courts and create additional expense. This matter must be cleared up now that local authorities are agreeing estimates for the coming year. Perhaps the Minister could indicate how he intends to proceed in that regard. I read a report in the newspaper today that he proposes to amend legislation, and perhaps he will clarify this.
We will now allow questions to the Minister.
We asked a few questions during our contributions.
They were supposed to be speeches.
What is happening in terms of the allocations for local authorities this year? As regards road construction inflation, why do we have an increase if 30 projects are held up for between five and 12 months? What is happening with the IFA dispute? The Minister referred in his speech to the waste management capital infrastructure grant scheme he will announce shortly for recycling and recovery infrastructure. Does recovery infrastructure include waste to energy incinerators?
I have said everything I wanted to say. We have overspent by 10% and delivered half of what was budgeted for. That tells its own story. It is futile to get into the detail at this stage.
The IFA dispute has been going on since May. There have been regular stories in the newspapers since July indicating that a solution had almost been reached and that the Minister would make an announcement shortly. We are now heading into December, which means a year has been wasted in terms of on-site investigations and survey and EIS work. It is not a loss of a few months but of an entire year. What is the position? Is a solution imminent or is this story being fed to the media by both sides?
As regards taxis, I know the committee has written to the Minister about them. I do not feel that compensation is due to taxi drivers as a result of deregulation for the loss of the capital value of something they bought for £100 or £1,000 many years ago.
That is a matter for the joint committee. It is not for discussion here today.
I want to know if there is money for it in the Estimate.
That is a matter for the joint committee.
It is a matter for the Supplementary Estimate because the money was not budgeted for it. As a result of the Taoiseach's forum, people bought taxis in the couple of years before deregulation and some of them now face losing their homes before Christmas. The Minister promised to do something about those hardship cases. Will something be done for those families who made investments directly as a result of Government action? I am concerned about those people.
As regards the last question, perhaps the failure of successive regimes, corporations and county councils——
Led by Fianna Fáil.
——to deregulate the taxi industry might have more to do with the difficulties in which some people find themselves.
On a point of order, this power lay with Government until 1996 and when we tried to change it, Fianna Fáil thwarted it.
I did not allow anyone to interrupt the Deputy while she was speaking.
The Minister has an obligation to be accurate.
I will either chair the meeting or I will not. Please allow the Minister to speak without interruption.
I hope the obligation to be accurate extends across the floor of the House because some of the "off the top of the head" statements made by Deputy Olivia Mitchell about a £95 million overspend and half the work being done are totally inaccurate.
What about the 31 projects?
I am surprised if the Deputy believes that. If she does not believe it, she is engaging in a little bit of party politics, which does not have any place in such a committee.
As regards local government fund allocations which Deputy Gilmore mentioned, we have a Supplementary Estimate for the local government fund of €70 million for which we are seeking approval. I did not want to presume the approval of the committee before finalising the allocations. The Supplementary Estimate of €70 million will inform the final decisions concerning allocations for the various local authorities. As soon as the Supplementary Estimate has been recommended by the committee and, hopefully, passed by the House, we will then be in a position to make the allocations.
As regards inflation in the cost of road construction, local authorities, through the managers, were made aware that they were to receive a 3% increase, that the cap on rates was to be 7.5% and that they were to work generally within those parameters. Most local authorities have done so. To date, approximately 14 local authorities have already agreed their estimates and quite a few more are due to agree them next week. There has, therefore, been no delay or hold up and local authorities have got on with their business. Hopefully, we will be able to give them a little bit more than we originally anticipated now that we have this Estimate. We will be telling them that in the very near future.
As Minister, I never mind coming before a committee to explain how successful we have been in increasing the amount of money that we are seeking in the Supplementary Estimate for roads and that it is on the basis of increased work, not inflation. Deputy Gilmore should be aware that the rate of construction inflation over the past couple of years was 12%. This year we expect it to be about 8%. I assure the Deputy, however, that the extra provision we are looking for in this Estimate is because all the road projects scheduled for completion in 2001 are on target. I can go through the list again, if necessary, because I do not think it is in the script. In addition, all the projects scheduled for commencement are also on target. We are talking about an increased output of about 40% in the national roads programme. It is not, as has been suggested, that we only have half the work and are seeking £95 million more for the roads. This is a success story.
I remember appearing before the committee last year when we were handing back moneys because of delays in the Ballymun project. I was criticised by the committee on that occasion, but it is a bit rich to be criticised this year for increased spending and output. Politics being what it is, however, one must expect such criticism.
The only thing that is affected by the dispute with the IFA, is the planning and design element. That will not feed into the building system until the end of next year, or perhaps 2003. Once the discussions have been completed, we will make every effort to catch up. There are things we can do to catch up on some if not all of it. Foot and mouth disease had an impact also, earlier this year. I am pleased to inform the committee, however, that I had a meeting today with the IFA leaders, Tom Parlon and Michael Berkery, and we have agreed on a final arrangement to resolve the difficulties. We must now talk to the NRA and the ICMSA, and the IFA must undertake its own consultations. I am hopeful that the agreement we have reached will be satisfactory, that the dispute can be resolved, and that work on the roads programme can recommence.
Nobody regrets the under-expenditure on the waste management section of this Estimate more than I do, but what happened was quite simple. We did not have regional waste management plans, and local authorities——
Come on, Minister.
We could have had them.
Please, Deputies. I have been very fair with every member of the committee since I took over the chairmanship. I have treated everybody extremely fairly. I am now asking members to allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
Whether we like it or not, the waste management plans were not in place. The last thing Deputies want to see is a lot of useless or duplicated expenditure around the country. It was necessary to put in place the regional waste management plans. They are now in place as a result of the action we took, without much support from the Opposition, to enact the Waste Management (Amendment) Bill. Deputy Mitchell said that some regional waste management plans are not in place while others are, but they have all been adopted at this stage due to the action we took this year.
Dublin has done so for three years.
The Deputy indicated that some waste management plans have not been adopted, but I am telling her that all of them now have been.
The Minister must have misunderstood me. I said that many of them have been adopted for years.
Allow the Minister to continue without interruption.
No, the Minister is incorrect.
I am asking the Deputy to allow the Minister to continue.
If that is what the Deputy said, I accept it. However, they have all been adopted at this stage. It would not be a very wise use of taxpayers' money to operate on the basis of incomplete plans. We needed complete plans for all the regions and we now have them. All local authorities are now committed to an accelerated programme of providing civic amenity sites, transfer stations, material recovery facilities and biological treatment plants throughout the country. I echo what Deputy Kelleher said, that instead of pandering to local interests, public representatives should now show some leadership in providing these facilities so that we can get on with modernising our waste management systems.
The Estimate will provide money next year for civic amenity sites, transfer stations and material recovery facilities. I hope the record next year from the local and regional plans will be much better than this year's.
I think Deputy Gilmore had a third question and I do not know whether I covered it or not.
I asked the Minister about the Supreme Court decision on waste charges.
The Supreme Court decision must obviously be considered by the legal experts. Its effect in Cork is that Cork cannot operate the stickers on the bin system and refuse to collect those bins.
Could that apply nationwide?
It might apply nationwide and that is one of the questions that must be answered. There is a legal opinion that says it applies to the system that is operating in Cork as well, so we must resolve that matter. We will consider the decision and if legislation is necessary, as it may very well be, we will be proposing it. I have not seen the article the Deputy mentioned in the Dáil this morning.
The city manager reported it to a corporation meeting last night.
I am not sure where the city manager gets his information, but he certainly did not get it from me.
Okay.
We will not be operating on the basis of emergency legislation. We will probably use the EPA amended legislation, which is due for consideration early in the new year, if it is deemed necessary to do so for legislative purposes.
I thank the Minister for the replies he has given to us. There was one question I was anxious the Minister would answer and that was regarding this phrase "recovery infrastructure". Does that include waste to energy facilities?
No. There is no grant. We have no plans or intention to make grant assistance available in respect of any capital costs of thermal treatment of any kind.
I appreciate that the Minister cannot give the committee the details of the agreement which he said he has concluded with the leadership of the IFA because he has yet to discuss it with the NRA, the ICMSA and others. What is the estimated cost of the agreement?
I cannot give the Deputy an honest answer off the top of my head. The total figure for the improvements, which would include matters like the provision of fencing, etc., will be in the region of £80 million.
Is that figure in addition to what is already provided for?
Yes. I stress that the figure I mentioned is an estimate off the top of my head.
I appreciate that.
I understand that the Minister cannot actually give the details of the agreement at this stage. Will whatever concessions have been made to bring about an end to this dispute, if that is what it is, apply to all those facing CPOs in the future, apart from farmers or is it specifically for farmers?
No. It is an agreement with landowners brokered by the IFA on behalf of landowners who will be affected by the national roads programme.
I take it the agreement relates to everybody.
Yes, farmers and non-farmers. Quite a few of the people who are leading some of the agitation are what we down the country would call "gentlemen farmers". These are lawyers, solicitors, dentists, etc., who bought 20, 30 or 40 acres and farm more for leisure than to earn a livelihood. Unfortunately it will apply to them also. It applies to anybody who is affected by roads.
I just want to get this right. Does this agreement relate to the lands which have been disputed in the current controversy only or has it wider application?
It will apply to any lands that are to be taken for road purposes under the national development plan which have not gone through the CPO processes at this stage. There will be a starting date for this agreement.
What about situations in respect of the national roads network where agreements have already been made with landowners or where the CPO process has been used already and there are arbitration findings? If, as it appears, there will be enhanced compensation for those with whom the CPO process has yet to be applied, does it not reopen the door now?
No. Those kinds of agreement are binding. Once one goes through an arbitration process, etc., the decisions are made in the cases concerned. This will only apply as and from a particular date - the date as agreed - to any lands being taken or CPOs applying in the future. It cannot be retrospective.
May I ask a further question on this? I appreciate this is something to which we may return. However, the largest allocation in today's Estimate is for roads. Where landowners are faced with the prospect of a CPO or some public infrastructure development affecting their land, is it not the case that if they refuse access to the public authorities who wish to carry out the development or in this case who want simply to do the initially surveying, etc., the Government will negotiate enhanced compensation with them?
No.
The sum of £80 million is a hell of an incentive.
It would be better if the Deputy saw the entire terms of the agreement first. I am trying to give him an estimate based on some very tentative homework done on this matter but there are a number of items in the agreement which have been the cause of great resentment for a long time that are being dealt with at last. Deputy Kelleher mentioned cases where the land of people who were subjected to CPOs was taken off them and the people concerned had to wait years for payment. There were some very significant delays, disturbances, etc., involving farmers in places where land eventually was not taken from them. This caused disruption, etc. A number that should have been addressed years ago are now being addressed but what we are talking about here is something which is unprecedented, namely, a national roads programme the likes of which has never been proposed before. That programme is absolutely vital for the economic development of Ireland and it should be carried out within the timescale we have outlined. It is not the same as we were doing in the 1994-99 period in taking little bits of land on the outskirts of towns to build bypasses. The basic argument put forward, which I accept, is that this is something that never happened before. The system we had in place to deal with it has not been revised for a good many years. It is in return for the investment of £80 million to which I referred, which, to put it in context, is about 0.2% of what we intend to spend on roads in the programme, and in return for "easy access" and accelerated access to lands to do surveys and to make the very necessary decisions. I am told by the IFA that if this is agreed, route corridors can be quickly put in place and that it will accelerate that section of the roads programme. In return for 0.2% of the roads programme, we are getting that benefit. Obviously, farmers are getting some benefit from it as well but the agreement was necessary. I hope the IFA, the ICMSA and farmers generally will agree with it and that we can get on with the business.
Since the Minister mentioned the Ballymun project, Chairman, may I ask a question on that although it may not relate strictly to the headings in today's Estimate? For about eight weeks all work has stopped on the major civil engineering contract in Ballymun by order of the Health and Safety Authority. Is any progress being made on that matter? While safety on any building site is very important, the current argument has little to do with safety and more to do with a power game between the Health and Safety Authority and the local authorities and, perhaps, the Minister's Department.
It is significant that various statutory bodies always pick good territory for power games. They pick a poor or disadvantaged area where they feel the line of resistance is weaker. Why can Ministers and officials not take action to resolve issues which involve different Departments so that they do not end up in the courts? How much money will be provided in next year's Estimate for the delay given that the construction companies do not care because they will be paid anyway? This has been a bureaucratic power play between various State organisations which will cost the Minister's Department and the taxpayers millions of pounds before it is resolved. Is there any hope of a solution so that every case does not end up in the High Court or the Supreme Court?
I do not wish to comment on what a State agency might be doing but I presume everybody is discharging his or her duties as he or she sees fit. The Deputy highlighted this problem previously following the tragic death of a child on the site of the Ballymun regeneration project. I assure him that the discussions that have been taken are designed to ensure such cases do not end up in the High Court again. The Deputy made a number of good points in this regard, among them the need for people to be more specific about what they want to do to ensure sites are safe, which I passed on to my officials.
I will not comment on compensation. The normal contracts will apply here as anywhere else but it is in the interests of the Department, the corporation and the Ballymun regeneration project to resolve the difficulties as quickly as possible so that the project can continue. There is only a limited amount we can do but we will do anything we can to ensure the project is advanced quickly and safely.
I refer to a question I asked earlier to which the Minister did not reply. How much did the NRA seek for 2002? How much has been allocated to the authority? Does the increased allocation for local government include a provision for the cost of implementing the financial provisions of the Local Government Act, 2001, which will apply to the elected tier of local government? If so, how much has been allocated to implement these provisions?
The local government fund and councillors' salaries will be a contra-entry in the Estimates because they will be funded by the Exchequer when the figure is finalised. It willnot affect what has been agreed by local authorities.
I cannot tell the Deputy how much the NRA will receive for national roads but the Abridged Estimates volume provides £960.531 million. The Minister for Finance has indicated that he hopes to provide extra funding for infrastructural projects and I hope to increase that figure on budget day. I cannot provide the final figure. Like every body under the aegis of my Department, the NRA will spend as much as I can secure for it. The authority has been particularly successful since I came into office in cranking up its performance. Its allocation increased from £350 million in 1997 to £750 million last year and, hopefully, it will receive almost £1 billion next year. I take some credit for that.
I misread a figure earlier. The figure for the proposed agreement is 2% of the value. I think I said 0.2%.