We have already agreed the suggested timetable for consideration of the Estimate for the Department of the Environment. I would now ask the Minister to make his opening statement.
Vote 25 — Environment.
It is two years since I sat in the Seanad Chamber. I am glad to be back here. I notice a number of my colleagues here, I thought they had to go through a process of campaigning, receiving nomination from the Taoiseach, or alternatively being elected from one of the university panels. A number of my colleagues from the Department of the Environment have succeeded in getting into this House without any of that hardship being imposed on them.
Of course the Minister had help from his constituency colleague who has already been elected to the Dáil.
I bet they would not trade their jobs for the seats they hold at present and put themselves before the electorate every four or five years to be judged.
I think they are all aware of that fact.
It is nice to remind the permanent Government occasionally.
In North Tipperary they call it musical chairs.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss my Department's 1993 Estimate with the Dáil Committee on Finance and General Affairs. The reports which I have seen of the Estimates debates in the various committees suggest that the changes made by the Dáil in the procedure for handling the Estimates are on the right lines, and I look forward therefore to constructive discussions and exchange of information during the day. A short brief, on the agreed lines, has been circulated to members of the Committee giving details of the overall Estimate and the individual subhead expenditures. Deputy Browne and Deputy Stagg, the Ministers of State at my Department, and I, will be happy to assist the Committee in any way we can during the question and answer session later on. If more specific information, not readily to hand, is sought by Members, we will be glad to communicate with them, subsequently.
A very substantial sum is involved in the Estimate but it is necessary also to consider the spending by local authorities, including expenditure funded from their own resources, to get the full picture in relation to the services we are concerned with today. Total expenditure this year by local authorities and my Department will be some £1.6 billion, after making allowances for payments between the different levels. As local authorities, and my Department employ over 30,000 people, and their expenditure also supports thousands more jobs in the private sector, it is clear that we are dealing with a very large business. For this reason alone we must ensure that we get value for money from the growing volume of spending on local services. I have, therefore, established a value for money unit in my Department to assist the Department and the local authorities to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness in the different expenditure programmes. I expect the unit to produce reports, and results, later this year.
I get the impression, from visits to local authorities and otherwise, that more could be done to highlight the vital infrastructural and other services the local authorities provide for the people in their respective localities and to ensure that local communities understand the financial and other implications of providing high quality services. Local authority elected members and officials often get a bad press, while the positive contribution of the local government system often goes unnoticed, and many of the services provided are taken for granted. I would like to put on record my appreciation of the dedication and commitment of so many elected members and officials of local authorities in providing services to the public in these difficult financial times. I will be working over the next few years to devolve even more responsibility and authority to local level, and to remove as many as possible of the controls and other restrictions which have inhibited the growth of a stronger local government system. However, local authorities will continue to be faced with difficult choices, as demands for new and improved services will always exceed available resources. In the last analysis, our society must face the fact that if we want new or improved services we have to pay for them, either at central or local level.
This year, the Environment Estimate has been increased quite dramatically, by 24 per cent or almost £150 million. The main increases are: an extra £26 million (£17 million from the Exchequer and £9 million from internal receipts) to enable 3,500 new local authoritiy houses to start this year compared to 1,000 authorised in 1992; extra provisions totalling £4 million for remedial works, bathrooms and voluntary housing; an extra £70 million for road improvement works; an extra £47 million for public water and sewerage schemes.
The extra expenditure on local projects will provide for increased employment, direct and indirect, on the major works programmes, while at the same time providing greatly needed infrastructure to meet economic and social demands. The increased expenditure and employment will be well spread throughout the country, benefiting virtually all areas.
At £340 million, the provision for road works is by far the largest single element in the Estimate for 1993. The national road network has been identified as a component of our national infrastructure which requires sustained investment. Therefore, the largest share of total spending is devoted to this. The priority afforded to the development of this network in the last few years is now showing real results all around the country as major new road sections come into use. Our strategy has been widely endorsed by the Sectoral Development Committee, the Task Force on Employment, IBEC and the reports of the Culliton and Moriarty committees, to name but a few. We intend to continue a high level of spending on the national primary routes to ensure the completion of the development of the network to the required standard, within a 12 to 15 year period from 1989.
The provision for national roads has been greatly increased this year. It includes £169 million for major road improvement schemes on the primary routes and £55 million for other improvement works on these routes. In addition, £15.5 million has been provided for improvements to national secondary roads and grants totalling almost £21 million are provided for maintenance works on national roads.
The 1993 road grants will allow work to start on 13 major improvement schemes, costing a total of £200 million. The additional £40 million provided in the 1993 budget for road projects to be assisted from the Cohesion Fund will enable the pace of construction and improvement work on the national road network to be accelerated. In particular, the extra resources allow us to put together a coherent package of measures for each priority route so as to achieve, over a reasonable period, the full development of that route to the established national standards. This approach will respond to the criticism of the lack of uniform quality and standards along particular routes, and tackle the problems created by moving from improved road sections to unimproved sections. It will also bring with it a greater geographical spread of investment.
Traditionally, the work of maintaining and improving non-national roads, including county and regional roads, was financed from local resources, with only limited road grant assistance. However, substantial grants for regional and county roads have been provided in recent years, mainly in the form of discretionary grants. This will give a wide flexibility to local authorities in the selection of the work to be carried out. In the period 1989 to 1992, the Exchequer has provided over £250 million in discretionary grants, while local authorities have invested a further £240 million over the same period.
The total allocation for maintenance and improvement of non-national roads in 1993 amounts to over £75 million. Approximately £69 million of this amount has been allocated to county councils in respect of works on regional and county roads. This substantial level of funding is a measure of the Government's commitment to the ongoing needs of agriculture, forestry and tourism, and the needs of rural communities generally. I am fully committed to meeting the reasonable demands for priority investment on these roads and due regard will be given to their needs in framing the National Development Plan.
Over £119 million is being provided for the water and sanitary services programme this year, the largest ever provision for this important programme. The increase of almost £47 million over the 1992 outturn will meet expenditure on fully approved water and sewerage schemes, as well as allowing schemes that have been selected for Cohesion Funding to begin construction at the earliest possible date.
Water and sewerage services are basic infrastructural components on which various sectors of the economy are heavily dependent. The provision of this infrastructure is, therefore, essential if we are to provide support for economic development. In addition, continued investment is needed to enable us to comply with Community environmental legislation, both in relation to drinking water production and the disposal of treated sewage and other water borne wastes.
Initial capital allocations of £98 million were notified to local authorities last April to enable construction work to continue on water supply and sewerage schemes throughout the country and to allow for some new starts. Some £40 million of the 1993 provision has been set aside for schemes which are to be co-financed by the Cohesion Fund. When the formalities are completed with the European Commission, the schemes concerned will be able to get under way quickly.
Since the Government took office, we have seen concerted progress in implementing the commitments on housing contained in the Programme for a Partnership Government. This has involved a greatly increased local authority housing programme; greater emphasis on implementing the measures contained in the plan for social housing; a fundamental review of the measures in the plan to ensure that they make a greater contribution to meeting social housing needs; significant improvements in regard to disabled persons and essential repairs grants and increased resources to help meet the needs of homeless persons.
The plan for social housing contains a range of schemes designed to respond to various housing needs and it also give low income households, for the first time, a range of housing choice. It was, in many ways a radical departure in social housing policy and for this reason it naturally required some time for the various new schemes to become familiar and to be taken up. There are indications that these schemes are now working well in many areas.
Some 3,500 house starts have been approved for the 1993 local authority programme. It will require a major effort on the part of all concerned if the full number of new starts is to be achieved. The expanded programme has the potential to provide some 4,000 additional jobs — 2,000 on site and a similar number of spin-off jobs — when all the authorised starts are under way. This will contribute to the Government's overall priority of reducing unemployment. Progress on the housing programme is being kept under review in the course of the year to ensure that our overall target is achieved. The full impact of the accelerated building programme will be clearly evident next year when the majority of the houses commenced this year will be completed. Overall, I expect that the housing needs of 16,000 households will be met in the two year period 1993-94 by the combined social housing measures.
The expanded local authority housing programme can be done well or badly. We are determined that it will be done well. As a result a new set of detailed guidelines has issued to local authorities requesting them to ensure that schemes are well designed and well located, and that special emphasis is put on the need for housing in inner urban areas. The need to use infill sites and to rehabilitate run-down areas has been emphasised. Large new green field estates must be avoided, and there must be greater concern for the overall social and environmental impacts of schemes.
Since the enactment of the Housing Act, 1988, there has been a substantial expansion in the measures to assist the homeless, mainly through schemes operated by voluntary housing organisations. A significant part of the funding available under the voluntary housing capital assistance scheme goes towards the provision of accommodation for homeless persons. A good example is the Salvation Army's new 107 unit hostel which is nearing completion at Granby Row and which will contribute significantly to the availability of emergency accommodation for the homeless in Dublin.
Expenditure by local authorities on the provision of emergency accommodation for the homeless increased considerably in 1992. Expenditure recouped to local authorities by my Department came to £674,000 in that year, compared with £377,000 in 1991. The 1993 provision has been increased to £1 million and, in line with the commitment in the Programme for a Partnership Government, the level of recoupment was increased from 80 per cent to 90 per cent with effect from 1 April last. Preparations are in hand for the introduction of an extended referral system for homeless people seeking accommodation.
The number of traveller families accommodated in local authority serviced caravan sites and in local authority housing increased in 1992. The annual provision of £3 million for the construction of serviced caravan sites was exceeded in 1991 and 1992. This is a good indication of the greater progress being made by local authorities in providing sites. The 1993 provision is again £3 million, but additional moneys will be made available if required. In addition, the expanded local authority housing programme will enable local authorities to house an increased number of traveller families assessed as in need of housing.
The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development — otherwise known as the Earth Summit — took place in Rio de Janeiro in June last year and environmental activity continues to be influenced by it. There is a renewed commitment in the Programme for a Partnership Government to protection and enhancement of the environment and, in particular, to building on, and speeding up, implementation of the environment action programme. The large increase in this year's allocation for water and sanitary services schemes, which is the largest and most urgent financial requirement of the action programme, is evidence of the Government's commitment. Progress on the development of regulatory controls has continued, with new regulations on water pollution, vehicle emissions and emissions from large combustion plants. In addition, an environment policy research centre has been established within the ESRI to address economic aspects of environment policy and, of course, the Environmental Protection Agency will be formally constituted in the near future.
The need to integrate environmental considerations into policy areas generally is one of the major conclusions of both the Earth Summit and the European Community's Fifth Environment Action Programme. The report of the Green 2000 Advisory Committee, published earlier this year, also endorsed this. Although many difficulties lie ahead, I am convinced that effective implementation of this concept is a prerequisite for sustainable development. I intend to agree an agenda with my colleagues in Government to promote greater integration of environmental considerations into their strategic programmes and I will also be working to ensure that the National Development Plan will address this issue. A second annual review of the environment action programme is in preparation and this will give further details of action already taken or in train to implement the conclusions of the Earth Summit.
The Convention on Climate Change agreed at Rio de Janeiro was a major achievement. It is my intention that Ireland will ratify this convention with the other member states of the Community by the end of this year. I recently published the Irish National CO2 Abatement Strategy as a response to the urgent problem of global climate change and, in particular, as a contribution to a Community programme of measures to reduce the impact of climate change. I have set up an interdepartmental co-ordinating committee to oversee the implementation of the strategy and have arranged that my own Department, with the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, will put in place a public awareness campaign to bring home to people the importance of the issues and how they can be addressed.
The decline in many parts of our inner cities and towns is being reversed. Through the tax incentives and rates reliefs available under the urban renewal scheme, a remarkable level of investment has been attracted to areas which were previously considered non-viable and without development potential, and which would have suffered further decline without some form of intervention. The focused injection of private sector investment prompted by the scheme has succeeded in transforming many urban areas into centres where normal market forces, once absent, have taken over to create a self-sustaining cycle of development.
This year's Finance Act provided for a final extension to the existing time limit for the Urban Renewal Programme. Foundations must now be fully laid before 1 December 1993 and works completed by 31 July 1994. The success of the general urban renewal programme prompted the Government to build on the unique atmosphere that had spontaneously evolved in the Temple Bar area of Dublin and to aim at the comprehensive renewal and development of the area as a cultural, residential and small business quarter. Temple Bar is special and the emphasis on conservation is unique. The development implementation company, Temple Bar Properties Ltd., has produced a framework for development in terms of property, cultural, marketing and environmental programmes. The private sector is also committed to a number of important projects in the area and we can look forward with confidence to the successful completion of the programme.
The Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1992, was enacted so that An Bord Pleanála could deal with planning appeals more quickly and effectively. I am pleased to inform the committee that the board continues to make significant progress in determining appeals promptly and gives priority to appeals in respect of large scale development with employment creation potential.
At the end of May, the board had 505 appeals on hand — the lowest number ever. The average time taken to determine appeals was just over 14 weeks and the board had only 19 appeals on hand for more than four months, compared with 259 at the corresponding time last year. It is clear, therefore, that the new procedures are working well and I have every confidence that the board will be in a position to meet its four month objective under the Act for the future.
The limited time available does not permit me to touch on many of the other important functions and services for which my Department is responsible. However, I and the Ministers of State will be happy to deal with any matters Deputies may wish to raise. I am confident that the 1993 Estimate will enable the services for which my Department and local authorities are responsible, to be maintained and improved, and allow us to take further practical steps to ensure that our natural environment will be preserved and enhanced for the benefit of this and future generations.
I thank the Minister for his presentation of the Estimate. I agree that the time available to do justice to such an important Vote and its many subheads is too limited. One can only touch on the issues.
I have felt for some time that the Department of the Environment is a misnomer. It is largely a Department of local government with a section dealing with the natural environment. I am afraid the expectations in terms of what the Department can deliver are rarely met. Perhaps we need to sort out our environment issues, and put them together in a Department and give them equal prominence, perhaps in the context of local government. We still have to get that right. The name of the Department was changed some years ago but it is not yet sending the right signals. It is also a misnomer because environmental concerns and issues generally are the preserve of many other Votes and portfolios, not just those within the Department of the Environment. The Departments with responsibility, Marine, Agriculture, Tourism and Trade, Transport, Energy and Communications, part of the Department of Finance, namely Office of Public Works, and others all have important environmental roles to play in the community generally.
For these reasons I am concerned that we still refer to the Department of the Environment as if it were the only Department that deals with environmental issues and concerns. The Department of the Environment should have a desk in each of these other Departments — an environmental watchdog desk — if the Minister wants an integrated multi-sectoral response to environmental issues and to regulate impact on the environment of regulations and legislation generally through all the Votes in other Departments, I ask that the Minister consider doing so.
We need an integrated environmental development plan and this must be presented and reviewed annually, analogous to a budget. The budget looks after the financial and Exchequer concerns and we should have this plan which would look after the environmental concerns. An environmental audit should be presented by the Minister and reviewed annually to see where we are making gains, what changes we need and to identify problem areas so that they are picked up and dealt with before too much damage is done.
As I said, it would be analogous to the budget and its provisions would form part of the consideration of all decisions at national and local level of public administration. All new legislation and regulations should also be accompanied by an environmental impact memorandum. When legislation is published it is accompanied by an explanatory memorandum. Any new legislation or regulation should be accompanied by an environmental memorandum and I suggest the Environmental Protection Agency would prepare an environmental memorandum to accompany new legislation. This document, the environmental memorandum, could examine the environmental consequences of all legislation from every Department and prevent the introduction of measures which would cause a deterioration in our environment.
I welcome the publication of the revised Estimate, Vote No. 25, and the explanatory memorandum or brief that we all received from the Department. It makes assessing the Estimates much easier. I welcome many sections of this Estimate.
The Department of the Environment is a big spending Department. The increase in housing is welcome but it is only a response to the last Government's failure to recognise the housing crisis. The last Government, in which the Minister was also Minister for the Environment, presided over a dramatic increase in housing lists and priority lists for housing in local authority areas. The Minister also deals this year with a large increase in moneys from Europe from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. There will be a massive increase in spending on roads, water and sewage schemes. It is most welcome, needed and overdue in many areas. The roads fund is to increase by £70.5 million, £40 million of which is to be provided by co-financing. I assume then that the Minister is expecting at least £160 million from Europe if he is co-financing at a rate of 25 per cent. It is very welcome money and I do not have to tell the Minister where it needs to be spent. The demands for funds will far exceed £160 million and what it can provide.
The county and regional road subhead, C13, is a cause for major concern. Last year £67 million was spent on grants for improvement of regional and county roads to supplement local authorities expenditure. This year the Minister is providing only £63 million. He will probably tell me he will supplement it from the Structural Funds and-or the Cohesion Fund, depending on how those European moneys are juggled. However, in the absence of an explanation that implies he is not meeting his additionality requirements — he may be spending more globally but less from his Department — or that under that subhead there is a reduction in terms of what is being spent on improvement of regional and county roads by his Department.
I welcome the ongoing success of the urban renewal scheme and its expansion over recent years. I pay tribute to the Minister who introduced the scheme, and its concept, my former colleague, John Boland. It was his brainchild and it has been a most successful scheme. There are some problems, it creates local jealousies and tensions if one end of the town is looked after and the other end of the town feels that it has a problem as a result but, generally speaking, it has been most successful and I congratulate John Boland in this regard and I also congratulate the Minister for expanding that concept because it has been one of the great success stories.
Research is also dealt with in the Vote before us. This is one of the areas regarding which I have major concerns. If inflation is taken into account effectively the amount of money for research has been reduced as £3.6 million was spent last year and £3.5 million will be spent this year. This is one of the areas in which the Department of the Environment can contribute enormously to the creation of jobs. I urge the Minister to look at this area more seriously because I do not get the feeling that the Government and the Taoiseach understand the importance of investment in research and development generally. Governments in recent times have obliterated research on renewable energy sources and energy conservation. It is not the Minister's particular concern but it is very much related to his area. I welcome his announcement here of the Irish national CO2 abatement strategy over which he will preside with the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, although it presided over the decimation of research, investment in research, renewable energy and energy conservation generally. If CO2 abatement means anything, it means that we look at our major problem of excessive energy and fossil fuel use. Indeed our energy consumption per head is 20 per cent more than any other European state. It must be one of the highest in the developed world.
What better way to reduce energy consumption, in particular energy consumption of fossil fuels, and support the CO2 abatement strategy nationally than to invest in research on renewable energy and energy conservation? We have the best wave and wind regimes in Europe and we decimated our research programme in this area. The Minister's research programme has also been decimated. Obviously he does not understand the enormous connection between research and development and job creation. The Department of the Environment could create thousands of jobs in the short and medium term if it would only open its eyes and see where it is going.
A recent NESC report stated that lack of innovation was one of the major causes of unemployment. There are other problems but, obviously, lack of innovation is a major problem because of lack of incentive and entrepreneurship generally and lack of support through research and development for potential entrepreneurs. What has the Minister's response been to the request to his Department from the university research group on the environment? It asked for £50 million from the Structural Funds to develop a sustainability fund in this country. At a time when every possible option is being explored and assessed in the hope of finding employment opportunities, it is hardly conceivable that the Minister for the Environment and the country generally is ignoring probably one of our most outstanding competitive advantages, our environmental quality and image. I do not have the time to develop my concerns about the lack of investment in research and development. I ask for a response from the Minister, as to whether he will give the university research group on the environment the moneys it requires so that it can do research on the job potential of our environmental quality and image. It has huge potential and I ask the Minister to look into that as a matter of urgency.
What is happening regarding the Environmental Protection Agency? Could somebody let the secret out? It is coming to Johnstown Castle and it is the best kept secret in the Department of the Environment.
What more does the Deputy want?
I just want confirmation.
There is a big castle there.
Perhaps they have resolved the dilema as to which entrance to Johnstown Castle they will use because that appears to be its major concern. We all welcome the Environmental Protection Agency as an environmental watchdog and we will give it every chance to do the job we so earnestly wish it to do but that watchdog cannot be starved because a hungry dog will not work. It must be given the human and financial resources it requires to do the job. Please tell me what is happening regarding the Environmental Protection Agency and when it will be up and running. It has such an important job to do.
What about the freedom of information directive?
There has been no lottery funding, or surplus of lottery funds, as it is coyly referred to, since 1991 in the Department of the Environment. Why? Is the Minister losing the battle at the Cabinet table? Can he not fight his corner for lottery funding for areas of concern that need funding within his Department? What about the amenity and recreational facilities grants scheme? It is nominally mentioned and some money has been put in to pay for matters outstanding from last year and the year before. Why has that scheme been abandoned this year? The amenity and recreational grants scheme was a discretionary fund to each local authority to look after small local groups, bottom up, self-help groups who are working in this area to stimulate interests in amenity schemes and to provide recreational facilities locally. It is a most important fund for local authorities and it has been abandoned by the Minister this year. Why?
Ozone depletion in the Northern hemisphere was a matter of serious concern this spring. It showed 20 per cent depletion and, as we know, for every 1 per cent depletion of the ozone layer, there is a 2 per cent increase in damaging UVB rays. The ozone layer acts as a filter or screen in terms of these rays and for every 1 per cent increase in the UVB rays, there is a 2 per cent increase in skin cancer. This ozone depletion is a matter of major concern, particularly to those with fairer skin in the northern countries. Our meteorological stations are now monitoring ozone depletion. We need a commitment through the Minister, from them and the relevant Minister before next spring as that is the worst time of the year for ozone depletion. It is apparently the depletion period due to various atmospheric chemistries that I will not go into now. The Government, through the meteorological offices in Valentia, Dublin and Donegal should also be brought in on this, to issue public warnings — as is the case in regard to blight warnings and pollen counts at different times of the year to other interested sectors — of any serious depletions so that the public can take the necessary precautions and evasion measures. This will be a wonderful service to the fair skinned public who are very prone to skin cancer, particularly in the west.
There is much yet to be understood about holes in the ozone layer, apparently they close up in the summer months but the full details are not known, or at least scientists do not agree on them. There are various theories. We do not know what determines the size of the hole and why there can be differences in Arctic and Antarctic ozone holes and reactions to different matters. Many factors contribute to the damage to the ozone layer and they are not all man made. The Minister is making a small start with the carbon dioxide abatement strategy and I hope we will make our contribution in this country. There are also natural effects which cause damage to the ozone layer such as volcanic eruptions. This is an important area and I am asking that we put a warning system in place to enable the public to take the necessary evasion and precautionary measures. The Minister can do this through the meteorological offices which are now measuring ozone depletion. It is a service involving minimal expense which the public would very much appreciate.
I ask the Minister not to be so coy and nervous about insisting that, at least in the public sector, a preliminary environmental audit system is put in place. I accept that Departments of State and semi-State bodies should not be compelled to publish these audits for maybe five or seven years but at least an annual environmental audit in all the Departments and in the semi-State sector would lead the way. At the moment, the private sector, particularly the larger businesses in it, are leading the way in the important concept of environmental audits. The financial institutions and insurance companies are insisting they do it so that they can insure against the risk of environmental degradation, contamination and clean up costs. God help us if there were any major environmental problems. The Minister should lead the way in the public sector. He could start in his own Department or in the Houses of Parliament. An energy audit or an environmental audit of this House each year would come up with amazing figures. Let us get our own house in order and then ask the private sector to follow suit. I ask the Minister to look at the area of environmental impact assessments under the regulation. They are not functioning as we thought they would. They are an excellent concept but they are out of reach for many small and medium sized enterprises because of the cost in this area.
You are about a minute and a half over your time.
Allow me another few minutes. I think we can be generous with one another.
The only problem is that five or six Deputies wish to speak.
I will just make my point. I ask the Minister to lead the way in terms of introducing environmental audits, with or without publication, in the public sector. One final point I must make is the ongoing, unacceptable risk to our environment from the nuclear industry on the west coast of the UK. The Minister is not Minister for Energy but he is at the Cabinet table. If there is a major accident or if something goes wrong, as it did in Chernobyl not long ago, he will be responsible as far as the public is concerned because he is the Minister for the Environment and will be sorting out the mess. I ask the Minister to raise the profile of our Government's protestations and with the UK Government at the table at the European Council of Ministers. It is not just Sellafield, there are eight or nine nuclear reactors on the west coast of the UK. If there was no risk from the nuclear industry, BNFL would have located those reactors in London and Birmingham. Why have they put them in the least populous coast of the UK? It is obviously to minimise the risk to the public. Why should our most populous coastline, the east coast, be put at an unacceptably high risk when the UK authorities are trying to minimise their risk? This argument is being buried and forgotten. THORP is around the corner. Let us raise the profile of our protest and the Minister will have the support of all members. I thank the Minister for his presentation here today.
I am delighted to be back in the Seanad Chamber on a temporary basis. I enjoyed my spell here, as I know the Minister did, but I think I prefer the other House.
This is a much nicer chamber.
That is true, it is a much nicer chamber. I thank the Minister for his presentation on the Estimates. There is no doubt that he has a large Department and an enormous budget and there is a great onus on him to get the whole thing right. I would like to look at this in terms of the environment and local government. When I went through the Estimates, I experienced the same type of horror as when I started going through the estimates at county council level. To a certain extent, they seem to be designed to let you know as little as possible and, therefore, you have to find out as much as possible. I do not necessarily find them user friendly so I look forward to the question and answer session. Whatever reservations I have about the committee system, discussing the Estimates at a committee like this is very helpful. From that point of view I would certainly welcome the type of reform which would enable us to tease out the various aspects through debate.
This Government has lost its way on the green agenda. I do not believe that the focus is on the environment which is where it should be. We had a Government with an environment conscience and there were achievements and progress in the environmental area. The conscience has disappeared to some extent and I do not know why that happened. The emphasis on environmental achievement seems to have slowed down a considerable amount.
Unfortunately, what has hit the headlines in relation to environmental matters over the last number of months has not been helpful in that regard. The emphasis to the public has not been on the saving of our wonderful pristine environment and what we can do with it but on what has gone wrong. People view what happened with the interpretative centres in terms of the environment, not in terms of the Office of Public Works and its activities. There was a loss of credibility in terms of The Labour Party because the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Higgins was saying one thing which people thought was mere pretence and different things were happening. That is very unfortunate. People were not listened to and the environmentalists were not listened to at that time, which is a great pity. The result of that déb�cle is a loss of credibility, people feel that the emphasis on the environment is not as it should be. What we really seem to have——
Is this about Mullaghmore? The Deputy has us puzzled.
Deputy Upton, please allow Deputy Keogh to proceed.
I should not be talking to this man at all but——
If you have any sense.
Tell me more. We need to know the background.
We do not need an environmental discussion on roads but a genuine emphasis on our environment and so on. The Government produced the Green 2000 report. It was flawed and had certain negative emphases on policing the environment and controlling rather than education and exploring possibilities but it dealt properly with issues like waste reduction and management. In spite of the good recommendations, I criticised it when we had the debate. The Minister said this week that the report could not be described as the bible in terms of the environment. It might not be the bible but it has the makings of a very good book. However, it does not go far enough.
It was Charlie Haughey's brainchild; it was not that of the Minister. He does not want too much credit.
I know the reasons.
We are a broadly based party.
The example of the freedom of access to information on the environmental regulations shows a minimalist response to those who are most dedicated to the protection of our environment. It sends out the wrong signals about the Government's concern with environmental matters. I did not see any great provision in the Estimates to make ENFO a more proactive agency with the funding to bring the environmental message to our schools and education programmes. Maybe that is the intent but from the figures, it is not obvious what the emphasis would be in that agency.
The Minister referred to the Environmental Protection Agency. I welcome the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency will receive £1 million this year. I was wondering, like Deputy Doyle, what had happened to it. The establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency was perhaps one of the great achievements of the last Government. We debated the Bill establishing the agency for roughly 40 hours in this Chamber.
Many people criticised the whole idea, but there was a degree of excitement — and acknowledgment — particularly among environmentalists, that the Government had the right approach to the environment by establishing the protection agency. It is a great disappointment that it is not up and running.
We would like to know what this disbursal of £1 million on the Environmental Protection Agency will mean over the coming year. I think £600,000 was allocated in this regard for 1992.
It has gone up by about that.
It was £15,000 last year, it is £1 million this year.
The Environmental Protection Agency will have a lot of money to spend when it is eventually up and running. I do not know if the amount is sufficient for the difficult work which they have to do.
A sum of £618,000, what happened to the rest?
An estimated £600,000 has gone astray, will that be used this year?
It will be drawn from the resources of many existing bodies such as EOLAS and the ERU. It is not necessarily a requirement for a full provision. The Act was constituted on the basis of drawing from existing resources involved in the environment which would transfer directly, and these will be covered in other areas of expenditure.
It is as clear as mud.
Maybe next year we will have cause to re-examine that.
Additional resources will be required when it is fully fledged.
Sometimes I refer to this ministry as the ministry for local government, because I do not believe that enough emphasis is placed on the environment. There is too much of the aspirational with regard to the environment. I am not denying that there has been some action, but action on the environment has gone too far down the priority list.
In terms of employment creation, the fact that we are perceived as having a clean environment must impact on the sale of our goods overseas, particularly food products. Environmental action has a much wider remit than pleasing the environmentalists, it will create employment and so on.
I suggested to the Minister, in a parliamentary question this week, that perhaps he would set up a task force to ensure co-ordination of environmental matters throughout every Department. I know that the Minister has some involvement, of which I am glad, but he must be proactive. It is not a case of allowing people to report back to him, but of driving the whole matter.
I would like to discuss this from the perspective of local government. Nothing in these Estimates would lead us to expect more local reform. We are still awaiting the long promised legislation. It is now eight years since the elections to urban councils and town commissioners. That is anti-reform and anti-democratic. When there are elections these councillors will be faced with the problem which faces us as county councillors now — local authority elected representatives are powerless in true terms because the key to making local government work effectively, finance, is missing. No matter what extra allowance——
So the Deputy will vote for charges?
I did not say that.
Will the Deputy vote for charges?
We have charges in Dún Laoghaire.
I know.
I think the Minister would admit that the rate support grant is inadequate. Increasing it by a mere 3 per cent means that local councillors' hands are tied, and they cannot do the job which they were elected to do. It is unfortunate that the popular aboliton of rates in the late 1970s has meant that since then people cannot do the job for which they were elected. It is frustrating for local councillors, because I believe that good people will not run for election to local government because of this. Democracy will be the loser.
I will refer to some of the good aspects. We all welcome the extra provision for housing. In Dún Laoghaire, we would like more money for houses, our current crisis is a result of the minimalist provision for housing over the last number of years. With regard to urban renewal, anybody would welcome the revitalisation of inner city areas. The tax incentives and so on are welcome. I worry about the quality of the schemes which are being built. I have heard it said that people are afraid of ending up with a sort of noddy town in some of the inner city areas. We should be careful about the standards of architecture and so on in our inner cities. It will not cost any more to design things well.
In relation to housing, despite the range of schemes within the plan for social housing, the scheme is not working well in Dublin. There was a number of teething problems in this regard. It is something which needs to be re-examined. The Minister said he is pleased that An Bord Pleanála has been dealing more effectively with planning appeals, so am I. There has been much concern about An Bord Pleanála and the length of time it had been taking to deal with appeals. I cannot let the opportunity go by——
I know the Deputy will not.
——without asking the Minister to reconsider his view on the accountability of the board——
I have no persuasive qualities.
The Minister is deaf to our pleas.
Too busy protecting his pals.
Deputy Doyle should withdraw that remark.
I withdraw it.
We are pleased with the extra provisions for water and sanitary services. It is great that we are not pumping quite as much untreated sewage into the sea, lakes and rivers.
I do not like to interrupt at this stage, but the basis for real environmental management is getting the resources to get these jobs done. We have put the greatest effort into doing that. That is doing the practical work as opposed to talking about it.
I welcome the provision for extra services——
——the tail end.
It is still very important.
The best wine is kept till last.
Unfortunately sewage is still pumped into the rivers and the sea so the extra provision is welcome. That issue deserves a great deal of attention and I look forward to a better allocation next year.
The Deputy may not know that some Dublin beaches have been awarded the blue flag.
That is very good.
With regard to road grants we are all concerned that we have adequate infrastructure, which is important. We welcome the extra provision of funding, particularly in the EC Cohesion Funds. Despite those grants potholes are still filled by men with shovels and buckets. The provision of funding for that work continues to be inadequate. We have an unfortunate patchwork effect of lumps and bumps on our local roads. It is dangerous and we should solve that problem.
Unfortunately as local councillors, we cannot afford to repair roads because of inadequate funding. Many roads have been on the waiting list for improvement work for years, particularly in my constituency. It is difficult to explain to people that their road is at the end of a long queue. Despite the discretionary grants we do not have the necessary funds. We can discuss the matter further during the questions and answers session, which will be helpful.
In conclusion, I wish to refer to lottery funding.
What lottery funding?
We have not received any lottery funding and we would like to have some. So much could be done with such funding and the promise made in that regard has not been honoured. The Minister should make a provision of lottery funding for road repairs. There should be some degree of discretion available to local authorities with funding from the lottery if it cannot be provided through mainstream budgeting.
I thank the Minister for his attention. I hope he was not upset by what I said.
If he was, he might do something.
I am reeling.
I hope he was upset enough to do something about it.
We must put more emphasis on education in relation to our environment.
Smooth talking charmers get away with murder.
We have a great opportunity through an agency like the Environmental Protection Agency to achieve greater cohesion and professionalism in environmental administration. That opportunity, if it has not been lost, has not been exploited. I look forward to the Environmental Protection Agency being up and running in the near future. It would indicate a much needed emphasis on the environment.
I thank the Minister for his contribution today. I wish to refer to a number of items in the Estimates. When I read the Estimates the item that caught my attention was the allocation of 45 per cent of the 1993 budget for roads. I know the Minister's view that he must respond to the inevitable economic reality with actions through his Department. However, although the carrot of EC money is tantalizing, considered policy adjustment is required here to invest tax-payers' money to supplement the many schemes proposed by the EC. I refer to the large construction projects, for some of which there is a social need while some will facilitate imports rather than exports. However, that is a larger economic question.
One project the Minister has discussed with me before is the Balbriggan by-pass. A sum of £9 million of taxpayers' money will be spent on that by-pass of the overall cost paid by the State and the EC. That is the pattern in EC funded schemes. It is important that people realise, when something is advertised as being supported by the EC, that it means the tax-payer pays a considerable amount of the money. That money is not spent on repairs or on small roads. The cost of the project stops smaller roads being built — for example, the inner relief road in Balbriggan — in other areas with social and economic needs.
It also stops, according to responses to queries at council level, the building of pathways and cycleways and it starves the development of public transport infrastructure. Choices must be made and the road lobby is the strongest. Trains are operating with engines designed in the 1930s which were bought in the 1950s. These trains still operate in 1993 and not always efficiently. They break down frequently and irate people blame Iarnród Éireann.
What about the DART?
I will pay tribute where tribute is due and the DART is an excellent rail system. I am talking about areas outside the Dublin region of which the Minister, being from Tipperary, will also be aware.
There are some lovely new carriages and new trains. I have travelled on them.
The carriages can be beautiful but they do not travel without engines.
New engines will be available next year.
When ten new engines are introduced there will be ten redundant engines that should have been taken out of service long ago.
We must consider the ecological as well as the most economic options. When the Minister talks about facilitating exports and playing our part in the single Europe, it is important to realise that an efficient train system is more energy efficient — we must import energy — that relying on roads which must be maintained.
The next percentage of the Estimate is the 22 per cent for the rate support grant. The rate support grant is one of those quirks of history which will become more humourous over time because of how it was established. I was 16 years of age when the Fianna Fáil Party, with a huge majority went into Government.
It started long before that.
That was when domestic rates were abolished.
The phased abolition of rates started long before that.
The Minister would have to know my age to be convincing on that matter.
This is a fair point. How does the Minister know to what he is referring?
I know exactly to what he is referring——
This must be what freedom of information is about — finding out the details——
Not what An Bord Pleanála does or says, but when Deputy Sargent was born.
We were wrongfooted in the 1973 election on the same issues and we do not want to make the same mistakes again.
I would like to deal with the specifics of policy rather than personal details, if I remind the Minister that the effective rates support grant — he may talk about a 3 per cent increase — but when the wider effects of inflation are taken into account, the amount is decreasing. The councils make a wonderful representation of this in the Estimates every year when they say their expenditure is going up. Obviously a crisis is looming and one of the net effects — the largest one about which the Minister is concerned — is that councils do not have the money they need to carry out their mandate. The temptation to get extra finance is enormous. Indeed, many people both inside and outside the councils, have proposed that large tracts of agricultural land may have to be sacrificed to get money from developers. They are not thinking of the long term net effects this will have, but this situation is a result of decreasing the rate support grant and must be recognised, even though I know it is as unpalatable to the Minister as it is to me.
The Environmental Protection Agency was referred to earlier, so I will not discuss it — I look forward to hearing the answers to the questions. I wonder if the organisation is using the money allocated last year — and the one million pounds this year — or is this being used as a type of intervention?
A number of local authority staff have expressed concern to me because they are not sure what their position will be when the Environmental Protection Agency is established. Those currently involved in pollution control and general environmental areas are concerned that they may be the political sacrificial lambs. Will the Environmental Protection Agency put a gloss on their work or will there be a separate and clearly defined area for it? I am sure the Minister may like to offer some reassurance in this area. I am delighted to see an extra allocation of new starts in the housing programme because they are badly needed. I have also spoken to the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Stagg, about this and it is good to see it on paper. We should also bear in mind that when new houses are being built, the opportunities that arise can never be repeated. Energy efficiency and orientation of housing are examples. Installing water meters is also important because, whether we like it or not, the cost of providing a water service is not helped by regarding it as a free commodity. If metering is introduced, it may be a factor in limiting excessive usage, as I know it is a cost that councils find difficult to cover.
To facilitate charging, I presume.
To facilitate limited usage. If one wishes to make people appreciate the cost of a service, it is often helpful to tell them that only so much product can be used before the service suffers. That is logical. The support for organisations——
It will contribute to the cost of the service?
Yes. Charges must be introduced for excessive usage. We have not yet demarcated that, it would be more widely accepted.
Rural re-settlement Ireland and organisations dealing with it have been referred to and I welcome the visit by the Minister to County Clare in January to see their work. It would be a great help if every local authority encouraged such organisations, especially those near Dublin who seem to attract people, not only for the scenary but for all sorts of economic reasons. Investing in these organisations can go a long way towards saving money because renovating derelict and empty houses does not cost as much as building new ones and would provide suitable accommodation. There are 1,700 people waiting to take up houses in rural re-settlement schemes and I understand that English local authorities have bought houses in the west as a way of dealing with their own housing crisis. It seems to be financially efficient for them to do this, there is a message for us there.
I would like to deal with the environment programme, which refers to recycling facilities, I welcome the increase in its provision. Landfill costs in Dublin at the moment, including transport and other factors, are £44 a tonne, this is what we pay to get rid of what people do not want. Those involved in recycling projects in my own constituency of Dublin North, are being told that the monthly hiring of a skip is an excessive expense and must be cut back. It is not recognised that two or three tonnes of paper are being taken out of the landfill system. I wish we could marry this separate thinking and realise that it is saving us money.
Recycling is the only word referred to in the programme, although I would like to see the reduction of waste and the re-use of products. I am sure the Minister is aware of the involvement of private enterprise in using recycled materials. The Department could use its huge PR machine to pursue that type of option, which would be positively received by many in the wider community. In Dublin County Council, Kerbside is an example of a good scheme, but it needs a lot of money to carry it out because it is labour intensive and it is difficult to collect and separate the refuse. Other countries have introduced area depots, where people can bring items for recycling, re-use, swapping, and repair and it takes in a much wider brief than simply putting it in the bin. The Department's use of unbleached recycled paper would also go a long way towards telling us exactly how it feels on the matter. The IDA equivalent in Scotland, Scottish Trade International, said at a conference in Cork that Ireland could support a paper recycling plant on its own merit if it had Government support. I have talked to the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, about this. Such a plant may free us from our current dependence on international markets and trends, which are not good for paper recycling.
The establishment of a National Roads Authority is provided for under the Roads Bill, but I wish to point out that, in the overall environmental context, reduction of speed limits has an important role to play in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. A Dublin county councillor said that if we increase the speed limit people will arrive at their destination more quickly, therefore reducing CO2 emissions. However, if a car travels at 30 mph it emits half the fumes of a car travelling at 60 mph. That is a scientific fact. The popular belief is far from the truth. The Minister might highlight this matter to enlighten councillors and the public.
Regarding sewage, I asked what would happen if sea dumping did not stop under EC directives. I was told that the Minister does not comment on hypothetical situations.
A large volume of work must be done.
I appreciate the volume of work, but this daunting issue must be addressed in other ways. The Irish Sea could be called the Irish soup or the Irish stew. From Balbriggan, County Dublin, it looks like an Irish stew.
I did not taste it Deputy. Other options are not being considered. Reedbed technology is being pursued by the private sector. In County Cork and in the Border counties reedbed technology is providing an option for small developments. However, this should not be used as an excuse for further greenfield developments. The Minister must be more active in preventing developerlead zoning of land. Alternatives to the Victorian "flush it all down the drain" mentality are now available. Some people are willing to give that assurance and will look after a system in their houses or areas. Such a system is inexpensive and will not affect piping, etc. Other people depend on dry toilets even in places such as Balgriffin, County Dublin. They in their eighties must use a privy in the back garden. Those people should have a proper system. We must take these factors into account.
The water supply is a matter of concern for the Department of Agriculture following the recent heavy rain. I do not know what happened to the water table, but the level of run-off will have increased. It is a factor that is difficult to assess but when it occurs it is impossible to solve.
The Minister spoke about a renewed commitment in relation to the Rio Summit. It appears that the adjectives surrounding "commitment" know no bounds. One must ask what steps are being taken. The Minister mentioned that motor traffic increases by 4 per cent annually, which is a horrific figure. Radical action must be taken. Houses must not be built in areas not served by public transport. We should limit the cubic capacity of ministerial cars so that people do not receive the wrong message. Perhaps Ministers could be given bicycles——
Or a horse.
Deputy Sargent you have exhausted your time by three minutes.
A horse, with a cart for the officials.
I did not hear you, I apologise.
Bicycles would be of no benefit to Deputies in rural constituencies.
I refer to journeys in Dublin.
The Poolbeg Stations provides an opportunity for a combined heat and power unit. The 50-50 cash back advertisement should be banned. It is unacceptable to encourage people to use more fossil fuels.
Each year a car emits three times its weight in CO2 emissions. Mr. Edmund Burke said, in an article in the Observerthat no man ever made a greater mistake than to do nothing because he himself could only do a little. People must be made aware of the facts.
Recent weather conditions and the effect on farmland, the fatalities in Fingal, County Meath, the receding coastline, etc., are disastrous. The precautionary element must be the over-riding principle in the Department of the Environment.
Members who are, or have been members of a local authority will have experience in dealing with matters contained in this Estimate. The Minister for the Environment, Deputy, Smith, began his political life as a member of the local authority in Tipperary north. I have been a member of the local authority in south Tippperary for 26 years. Both Ministers of State at the Department of the Environment have experience in local authorities. Deputy Deasy is the only member who is indifferent to local authorities. We have a wealth of experience which will lead to a good questions and answers session.
Does the Deputy realise that this is a questions and answers session?
I understand that. However, the last contribution leaves many questions——
We learned a hard lesson last week. The questions and answers session developed into a session of answers and no questions.
Depending on the type of question, answers are often inadequate. We want to offer suggestions regarding the answering system. However, I do not wish to comment on other contributions, although Deputy Sargent's was interesting. Perhaps we should remain at home to reduce demands on energy, thus creating an ideal situation.
The Estimate of £772.324 million for the Department of the Environment is significant. At local level, we experience difficulty when trying to obtain funding for various initiatives. We are almost totally dependent on central funding regarding subhead B1, I commend the Minister, particularly, the Minister of State, Deputy Stagg——
We have agreed a format in this regard. This is a general question and answer session. A number of Deputies wish to ask questions.
I am entitled to ask questions.
Deputy, you may ask questions.
I am trying to proceed down the line.
On a point of order, are we going through this section by section?
Yes, or if the Members wish, with the consent of the Minister, they can ask global questions. Could Members ask three or four questions and then ask the Minister to reply, if that is acceptable to him?
I wanted to contain my contribution by asking questions with various references to the subheads——
Deputy Ferris, could we allow the Minister to answer first, please? Is that acceptable to the Minister?
I am always agreeable.
Can I ask some questions under the subheads? Otherwise we may have to change this format at a meeting of the Whips. Under subhead B1, the local authority housing programme, I compliment the Minister on the additional houses allocated. In light of the continuing problem in local authorities of the number of approved applicants still unhoused in spite of our best efforts and our commitment to future additional funding in this area from where does the internal revenue of £9 million come, making a total of £26 million for new houses?
In relation to private housing grants under Subhead B2 are grants for new houses means tested? I have been processing one for about five years. The latest request is for P60s and a certificate of income or social welfare income.
In relation to the same subhead I wish to refer to the refurbishment scheme, the success of which the Minister is quite aware. A former Minister, Deputy Molloy, has been credited with the construction of low cost houses. What allocation is paid to local authorities for the refurbishment of low class or low cost housing?
The Minister said that we have spent £490 million in three years under subhead C1 which covers road works. This subhead is of major importance to all of us. Despite the money which has been spent. There are still very bad roads. Is there a likelihood that the Structural Funds will assist us in this area and will the State's own contribution remain the same or increase under this subhead?
The Minister referred to urban renewal, we all know how important that is. When are we likely to see a new scheme that could apply to areas which are not already dealt with in the existing urban renewal scheme?
The Minister referred to the importance of various areas like forestry. Has he given any powers to local authorities to seek refunds from Coillte Teoranta for the damage they do to roads which are under the jurisdiction of local authorities and repaired and maintained at the expense of local authority funding? Coillte has caused tremendous damage to roads but it does not refund local authorities the cost of refurbishing these roads, despite the fact that we have the power to compel farmers to refund local authorities for the damage they do when, for example, they put beet on roads.
In relation to subhead F5, which deals with subsidies to local authorities towards loan charges in respect of the provision of capital services, will the Minister confirm if the total subsidy for capital works in the area of courthouses has been transferred from his Department to another and, if so, where is the existing liability for the refurbishment of courthouses under that subhead F5? It means that local authorities are responsible under the relevant Act for the maintenance of courthouses but the provision of funding for such maintenance may be the responsibility of another Department, perhaps the Department of Justice. Will the Minister clarify this for me as there is likely to be confusion in my constituency about responsibility for the condition of the courthouse in Clonmel?
I look forward to the Minister's reply and thank him for the presentation of the Estimates to us in such a way. I am particularly interested in the request from the Department that an applicant for a grant for a new house should be means tested.
I am very glad to have the opportunity to attend the committee. The committee system is a very positive one. I intended to respond to the earlier comments on housing but they were all positive so there is no need, usually I have to deal with negative points.
A question was raised in relation to the programme for 3,500 new houses in 1993 and whether this is a once-off blitz or an ongoing programme. It is an ongoing programme. There is a commitment in the Programme for a Partnership Government to such a programme with that level of funding. With this programme, and all other aspects of provision in the social housing area we will be providing by the middle of next year about 9,000 units per annum under various headings of the social housing programme. The Minister, Deputy Smith, has already pointed this out.
In relation to the provision for internal receipts from local authorities, local authorities sell houses to their tenants which are provided in the first instance from the funds from national Government. At present they are allowed to keep 40 per cent of the proceeds of these sales for their day-to-day spending accounts. The remaining 60 per cent is allocated to building further houses in their own area. It is as simple and as straightforward as that. At least 60 per cent of the money is gained from the sale of houses and is allocated within that county for building of further houses. There is no means test on new house grants. There is a floor area limit and they are confined to first time buyers.
The provision for the refurbishment scheme is £17.2 million this year and has been allocated to various projects throughout the country. Applications to the value of about £200 million are with the Department. That is a symptom of the fact that local authorities now seem to say that all maintenance and management programmes of any size should be under the refurbisment scheme. Local authorities spend about £80 million per year on management and maintenance of their housing stock. I have £17.2 million available to me for the refurbishment scheme. They should be aware that there should be better use of the £80 million spent——
Or the Minister will privatise the maintenance and management of local authorities schemes.
We will get far more questions answered if we allow the Minister to answer.
It would privatise itself, let me assure the Deputy. I will not have to take any action if something positive is done by the local authorities. I thank the Deputy for her intervention to allow me to clarify the matter because she has been shouting this across the floor in the other House for a long time without me having any opportunity to respond. I am opposed to the privatisiation of local authority services. I am warning the people who work in local authorities and the managers of local authorities to put their house in order by bringing in proper management systems that would allow for proper work practices. These are essential elements, otherwise, there will be a revolt by their tenants who are providing them with the £80 million and they will look for an alternative. If the local authorities do not put their house in order the system will change without them. I am quite satisfied that the local authority members, managers and staff have taken very seriously the reality that they cannot spend £80 million a year and not provide a service.
Very definite action is being taken by local authorities to put new management policies in place. I ask Deputies who are members of local authorities to ensure that we have strong management policy proposals. These are required to be submitted to me before 31 August of this year. Under that scheme of refurbishment £100 million has been spent to date. There is also a new programme of about £2.5 million a year.
I will deal with a number of questions raised by Deputy Ferris. I will answer the one in relation to urban renewal while acknowledging the complimentary remarks made by Front Bench spokespersons in relation to the urban renewal scheme. Deputy Doyle was extremely anxious that full credit be given to the former Minister for the Environment, John Boland. The scheme started in 1986 but the confidence, low interest rates and general economic management which began in 1987 provided for approximately £700 million investment in the urban renewal scheme and an additional £400 million on the Custom House docks development.
Does the Minister acknowledge former Minister Boland's innovation and ideas?
With our help.
I do. I would naturally expect a Government in power for four years to get something half right. The Government will decide what will happen at the end of the present scheme. Foundations must be laid by the end of this year and buildings completed by the end of July 1994.
There is considerable interest in an additional targeted scheme, perhaps changing from commercial office development to housing and small businesses. This will have to be dealt with later by the Government. It is important to see this scheme through to ensure that current developments are given all possible impetus because they have a high employment content. We will have further opportunities to look at and listen to ideas from all parties as to what is the best way forward.
In relation to damage to the county or national road network by the forestry service, the Deputy will accept that many commercial enterprises also cause considerable damage to roads. I would not like the House to think we were pinpointing one commercial activity as the only culprit in this area.
There is considerable employment in forestry and there has been massive investment in private and public forestry in recent times with the help of EC grants and support systems. It is a very important "sink" for carbon dioxide. Ireland has a low level of afforestation compared to its European partners. Our level is 6 to 7 per cent while the average in Europe is about 25 per cent. There is room for an increase and plenty of suitable land. However, there is pressure on the road system when crops mature and have to be transported to the plants.
In the various operational programmes on tourism, forestry and agriculture we can consider how the networks and the routes which service these industries can be promoted and improved. In the national development plan we are submitting proposals for enhanced support for non-national roads. It is also important to realise resources are limited, and perhaps more local support is needed to ensure the most efficient management system. Some counties have innovative, enterprising and community-oriented developments in this area and we look forward to progress in the future.
With regard to the refurbishment of courthouses——
Coillte is responsible for restoring the roads to their previous condition. Apart from the normal wear and tear on roads is the Minister aware of the damage Coillte causes to roads? Its workers haul large trunks of timber and cut them up on the roadside. This is important because——
This committee has a mechanism for its operations. The Deputy should have allowed the Minister to finish and then asked questions.
The Minister almost exempted Coillte from responsibility. I am not worried about ordinary wear and tear but I am worried about——
Deputy Ferris, if you wish to raise a question when the Minister is finished I will allow it but the Minister should be allowed to finish without interruption.
I am not prepared to apportion undue responsibility and blame to one commercial enterprise when I know that many others also do damage. Ordinary road users, sewage effluent and many other factors are involved and must be tackled. In the forestry and agricultural operation programmes we will see to what extent we can enhance the prospects for new resources for road development but there is a broader question.
Responsibility for the refurbishement of courthouses has been transferred to the Department of Justice and I no longer have to call on my resources to deal with this matter.
Before I call Deputy Nealon I will inform Deputies of the order of speakers. The following Members make up the list as it stands: Deputies Nealon, Upton, Deasy, Penrose, McGrath, Connaughton, Keogh, Doyle and B. O'Keeffe. Questions will be taken in that order. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Under subhead D2, group water scheme, the money available this year for the whole country is £2.5 million. I understand about £1.5 million of that has already been allocated for the 1992 schemes. That leaves the Minister for the Environment about £1 million of discretionary money for the whole country for 1993, which is unsatisfactory and an impossible position for the Minister. The total budget is £779 million and in that amount of money £2.5 million is easily lost. Someone is getting priorities wrong. We are talking about providing the basic necessity of piped running water for dwelling houses, in a year not far from the end of the 20th century.
Even though it is not highlighted in statistics, the Minister knows that large rural parts of the country still do not have piped water. The £2.5 million allocated will not put water in kettles there. For instance, all the money provided this year would be required to complete the schemes already projected for one electoral area in my constituency between Ballisodare and Ballina. The Minister is familiar with the area and thanks to him, the Chairman, the General Election and most of all myself and my persistence, work is beginning and water will be provided. I hope the Minister will live up to his promise "when I start a job, I will finish a job". I hope he will complete the work.
I do not want to take up the time of the Select Committee, even a select committee with a Sligo-Leitrim Deputy as Chairman. Everyone should accept that £2.5 million will not provide the necessary group water schemes for the country. I raise the Sligo group schemes and those in other areas to receive assurances from the Minister that he will give priority to this necessity.
I also have questions about subheads B2 and 3, relating to the house improvement grant scheme. One of the saddest entries in these Estimates is the £100,000 allocated for that purpose. We are witnessing the winding down of the house improvement scheme that transformed our housing stock. It was the best scheme for improving and upgrading existing houses since the foundation of the State. It costs money but everywhere the Minister or Minister of State travels in Ireland they will see the end product. The refurbished houses compare favourably with nearly new houses and in many cases they are more environmentally friendly. I hope the Minister is in a position to tell us that he plans for a new house improvement scheme. This scheme was one of the best things that ever happened as far as the housing stock is concerned.
I ask him to look at another type of existing house, some of which are in excellent repair. These houses are all over the west and have closed down because the families have died, or emigrated. The houses are in excellent repair and are left vacant because of the declining population in the area. Many of these houses have all the infrastructure, piped water, electricity and very often, a telephone. There are community centres, churches and schools in these areas, and because the population is decreasing, excellent schools are under threat of closure or losing teachers.
Something can be done about these vacant houses. If abandoned they will disappear, because nothing disintegrates faster than an abandoned house. Weeds, grass and cattle take over. It is not unusual to see a house which was occupied a short while ago abandoned, with a cow looking through the door or window. There must be some imaginative way by which——
Deputy Nealon, while I might be lenient in regard to a constituency colleague, have you a question?
It is a very important area. Surely there is some way by which these houses can be kept in the housing stock? I suggest that there should be some rural equivalent to the urban renewal scheme, specifically designed to ensure that the houses I am talking about would be maintained and allocated. It may be necessary for the local authorities to pay over the odds, to encourage their owners to sell them, and then provide accommodation for people who are on their list seeking houses in the town. In turn the Minister would do a favour to the local communities by keeping them vibrant. Deputy Sargent spoke about a way in which the rural resettlement scheme could be involved.
Deputy Nealon, with all due respect, I have already reprimanded Deputy Ferris and I must treat everybody equally.
Will the Minister consider whether a scheme could be set up to ensure that these houses are kept?
I am delighted that Deputy Nealon has emphasised how successful the Chairman and his colleagues in the Government have been in securing a large proportion of the total amount of resources available for group water schemes throughout the country for the Sligo-Leitrim constituency. Deputy Nealon should admit that we have responded to the needs of the area. A number of very expensive schemes are proceeding in his constituency. He will no doubt be aware that for a number of those schemes the cost per house runs into many thousands of pounds. This is totally out of character with the usual cost structure for group water schemes.
We have tried to find additional resources to pay for the sort of pipes required to knit into the regional scheme in Sligo and throughout the country. This means that the total amount of resources available, not withstanding very stringent budgetary constraints or the fact that up to the middle of 1991, FEOGA grants were available from the European Community for group water schemes, we must make 100 per cent provision for these schemes from our own resources. The group water scheme provision is, therefore, the highest ever in terms of Exchequer commitment to group water schemes.
Many of the group water schemes fitting the criteria, in other words those schemes which can be completed where no supplemental grant is required, have now been virtually completed throughout the country, and all the remaining schemes are those which, for one reason or another, have proved exceptionally expensive and require resources beyond what has been the norm. I am considering the question of how we can make better resources available for this, I will be able to add, from my total resources in sanitary services, a further £1.5 million on top of the £2.5 million to deal with many outstanding schemes across the country.
I am personally committed to those schemes. It is great when people are prepared to come together as a community and work as a co-operative to raise funds for themselves. Too many people are prepared to allow somebody else to solve their problems, but the people who have water supply needs in terms of hygiene for agriculture, dairy production and domestic requirements need support, and where they are prepared to work for themselves I am prepared to help them. The maximum resources that can be made available from the two subheads, those dealing with the group water schemes and the sanitary services, will be made available to continue that drive. If I am in a position to raise the grants to support initiatives of this kind I will do it.
I sought that in the census for 1991 a question would be asked about the kind of water supply in each house so that we could ascertain the situation. We will know that within the next few months so any future policy can be based on exact knowledge of the true position. There are not only inadequacies in terms of quality and quantity, there are terrain and other problems, which I see every day from Kerry to Sligo, and I am trying to find solutions to them. The answer is positive in the total commitment give to this scheme. Many new schemes will be approved this year and in the years to come. The Deputy inquired about house improvement grants. If the Deputy was sensible he would not raise this question because his party left a terrible trail when it went out of office in 1987. The number of grants approved at that time had an estimated cost value of £200 million, the provision for them in the Estimate was £24 million, which left a net £176 million required by the incoming Government, we were left with no choice in the face of that cost obligation because contractual commitments had been given. We were obliged to pay that money on a phased basis and some small outstanding amounts have still to be paid on foot of that grant. Whatever about the political nature of that decision and the question of the remaining financial difficulties inherited by the incoming Government in 1987, the greatest problem was that the scheme was open-ended. I very much regret that, due to financial constraints, people who are now entitled to house improvement grants by virtue of their means and needs cannot be provided for, because many millions of pounds went into the hands of people who were well able to provide for themselves but were eligible for grants. We have no proposals for further schemes at this time. Much emphasis is placed on trying to find resources to build and acquire houses for people who need new houses. The list of people waiting for houses is indicative of the needs we must address. We are, however, involved indirectly through the provision of low interest loans for the extension of houses where such extensions will solve some of the housing needs. Due to the historical problems and the moneys that still have to be paid on foot of those, there are no current proposals for a new scheme.
I was pleased to hear Deputy Nealon refer to the question of how to re-examine resources in rural areas for housing and where they fit into our plans for the future. I visited the rural resettlement organisation in Clare earlier this year. I increased the grant, under the voluntary bodies subscription, from £10,000 last year to £40,000 this year, to provide for additional resources for that organisation which is doing an exceptionally good job.
I accept that good housing resources are in decline and that they have a future use. It is not just a matter for the Government; local authorities love to do their own assessments in this regard. It is open to any local authority to purchase houses to meet housing needs at local level. In our housing programme we emphasise building and acquisition — acquisition of suitable houses for local authorities is part and parcel of the philosophy of housing now and in the future.
The renewal of rural areas is wider than housing. There are also the Leader programmes and the county enterprise systems. We are beginning to work against the decline of villages and schools referred to by the Deputy, because it does not make sense to provide for extensions to a school in one area as a school is closed in another. The political parties and society are committed to addressing this and there are a number of innovative schemes supported at EC level which, I accept, need further examination and support. To the extent that I can encourage and support financially developments which give new life to a resource in decline, I accept the Deputy's points and will respond as favourably as I can, as I have already indicated, to rural resettlement this year.
Is the Minister prepared to make money available to carry out an analysis of the reasons for the present failure rate of the driving test, of the order of 50 per cent? Will the Minister agree that a failure rate of 50 per cent is unacceptable and that there is obviously a mismatch between the standard expected and the level of attainment of the people who take the test? I do not believe that standards should be reduced, but there is a need for an analysis on the basis of why so many people fail the test. There is an obvious mismatch between the people taking the test and what is expected of them.
Is the Minister prepared to change the conditions for the recognition of driving licences issued in other countries? People from the United States of America find that their driving licences do not automatically qualify them for driving licences here.
In relation to the expenditure of £0.5 million in the Estimates for the National Safety Council, is the Minister happy that an adequate amount of money is to be spend promoting safety. Has an analysis been done of the returns from spending money on the promotion of safety? If a greater amount of money was spent on promoting safety would that expenditure result in a net saving arising from reductions in money lost in court cases compensation and so on, arising from accidents? Has research been done on it? If not has the Minister any plans to conduct research in that area?
I agree with the comments in regard to research and development in general and I ask the Minister to consider increasing the amount spent in that area in his Department.
Will the Minister make more money available for the dog warden services administered by the local authorities which, in the Dublin area at least, are short of cash? In particular is he prepared to take action in relation to the problem of feral cats in urban areas, which does not seem to be the responsibility of the Departments of Agriculture, Environment or Health? If it is the responsibility of his Department will the Minister do something about controlling this problem?
I am pleased at the response in relation to housing and rural resettlement. Will the Minister agree there is considerable potential for developing this idea? Will he consider it worthwhile investing more money promoting the concept and trying to get many of those houses in rural areas which are still of a high standard back into use?
I will take the question on rural development first. As the Minister said already, we assist on organisation positively and we increased its grant to four this year. It is mainly based in County Clare, but is spreading. It is trying to encourage people to live in rural communities decimated by people moving to cities.
There is very widespread interest, not just nationally but at European level, in this new phenomenon of people moving from cities to rural areas. I am supportive of it and, as the Minister said, we increased the grant available for administrative costs. I announced recently that because it uses the shared ownership scheme of loans for acquiring properties, we removed the need for the £1,000 deposit in the specific case or rural resettlement shared ownership applications. That was in recognition of the cost of moving for example, from Dublin to Clare. In conjunction with Dublin Corporation and the vocational education committee, we have compiled information for applicants and over 1,600 people have applied already.
I am from a rural area. Thee were 13 children reared in the house where I was born and it will shortly be idle. The house will not be sold because the family want to retain it. Many families have left the west but, like myself, they want to keep the family home intact hoping that they may go back when they retire.
Is the Minister thinking of retiring?
We will gladly resettle him in the west.
I have no idea what would happen if all the members of my family decided to retire to one house.
Deputy Doyle, please allow the Minister to continue.
The Government is supportive, and has demonstrated its support, of rural resettlement. There is interest in Europe in this phenomenon.
Deputy Upton will appreciate that for many years there were long delays in driving tests. However, today one can have a test on demand following an increase in inspectors and resources. Nationally and at local centres, the failure rates are slightly over 50 per cent. It is clear that those taking tests are either inadequately trained or have not given enough time to all the aspects of safety relating to driving which the test requires of them. When I am driving, and I am not saying I have not made mistakes, I sometimes feel that the tests are not stringent enough. There is a real need for a radical improvement in attitudes to driving. This is borne out by the high numbers of accidents and fatalities on our roads.
We are quite prepared to look at exchange facilities with other countries on the basis of a reciprocal arrangement. We are looking at such an arrangement with the USA even though it has a slightly different based system. This recognises the degree of mobility and freedom in commercial and tourism areas and so on.
The resources available for road safety have been increased this year to £500,000, but that does not take into account a direct contribution of £650,000 by the Irish Insurance Federation to road safety, plus a further £250,000 into that general area. These resources are the maximum available at present. The promotional activities of the National Safety Council and other general activities in this area have had beneficial results in the last couple of years. There has been a 7 per cent reduction in road fatalities. While there is no acceptable level of road fatalities, these schemes have focused public attention on the matter and have been helpful in creating an atmosphere where drink driving, speed and other factors, which lead primarily to the horrific death rate on our roads are unacceptable.
Clearly, more substantial progress needs to be made. The total remit for this does not lie only with the National Safety Council. It is based on our attitude which must continue to improve. I believe that the resources provided are adequate, based on my dealings with the National Safety Council, and we will continue to resource it from the Exchequer. I understand also that the Irish Insurance Federation has agreed to resource these activities for 1994.
The dog warden service is not satisfactory and needs improvement. There has been substantial changes in the law and local authorities have full responsibility in this area. The licence fees have been increased so that local authorities will have additional resources to deal with this issue.
I am worried as to what will happen to wild cats where complaints have arisen. If it is not possible to cope adequately with problems regarding dangerous dogs and other related problems, I am reluctant to add additional burdens, even though it is not my remit.
Twelve Deputies have intimated that they wish to put questions. These will be taken in four blocs of three, starting with Deputies Deasy, Penrose and McGrath, in that order.
Regarding subhead C1 and the related subheads 3 and 4, the Minister is aware of the dissatisfaction in Waterford city regarding his refusal to consider the financing of a second bridge over the river Suir. Proposals have been with his Department for several years regarding this project.
It appears inconceivable that a city which already encounters serious traffic problems due to normal traffic flows from the port of Rosslare to Cork, Kerry and the south-west, will not have a second bridge to deal with the large additional flow of traffic generated when the commercial port at Belview comes into operation within the next year or two. This is a massive development and will produce considerable flows of container traffic. The street system in Waterford, and the single bridge in Waterford, will not be able to cope with the additional flow. At present there are major traffic problems during rush hour at the bridge which was merely a replacement bridge for those which preceded it.
The development at Belview will be considerable. It is quite likely that a number of heavy industries will be based in the general area of the port. Forward planning is required to cope with the traffic chaos which will result unless this second bridge is constructed within a short number of years. The Minister has rejected the case presented to him, but he will be under continued pressure until funds for that bridge are provided. These could be obtained from national funding and Structural Funds.
The road leading from the port, going north, is good as it is part of the main Rosslare road but there is a snag at Arklow. If that road is to be developed to its full potential, Arklow will have to be bypassed. Perhaps the Minister will advise when work on the bypass is expected to commence?
Regarding secondary national roads, will the Minister outline when Callan, County Kilkenny, will be bypassed?. The buildings in that town have been in existence for at least 100 years. The town was constructed in the days of the horse and cart and is only fit for that type of traffic. It is totally inadequate for present day needs. If the secondary road is to have the importance it justifies, then Callan will have to be bypassed. The street system is totally inadequate. The last 35 miles of the N9 from Dublin to Waterford, from the village of Gowran in County Kilkenny to Waterford city, needs to be upgraded. It is totally inadequate for a road from Dublin serving a major city like Waterford. A lot of work has been done from Gowran back towards Dublin, including the Newbridge bypass at present being constructed.
I will deal now with the allocation of national and Structural Funds under subhead 1, items 3 and 4. Every county council and member of a local authority sees the necessity for the allocation of some of those funds for county roads. After so many years it is amazing that a formula has not been worked out whereby a certain percentage of Structural Funds are diverted to county roads. I hope that, some day, a Minister for the Environment will get together with the Minister for Finance and that they will have the wit, courage and foresight to do something about it.
It is a disgrace that by-roads which are overgrown and have potholes cannot receive one penny from the national Exchequer. They are dependent on local fund raising or service charges for their upkeep. The resistance to local charges is tremendous. It puts an unfair burden on local, elected representatives to keep increasing these charges year after year. If one looks at items 3 and 4 in that subhead, one allocation is the same as that for 1992 and one is a reduction on 1992, which in real terms means that both are substantial reductions in comparison to 1992. The 1992 figure probably was a reduction on 1991. There is a serious deterioration in the quality of by-roads and no attempt is being made to solve the problem apart from shoving the local service charges up and putting more pressure on local authority members. Structural Funds from the EC should have a regional significance and allocated to people in deprived rural areas, which is not the case at present.
I want to refer to planning permission, with particular reference to the recent legislation passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas as a result of the Mullaghmore and Luggala cases. Local authorities and State bodies will now have to apply for planning permission like everybody else. There is a contradiction in relation to the planning permission process in that we want to improve our environment by regulating planning in the erection of buildings. The primary necessity for a beautiful scenic environment includes mountains and hills, rivers, lakes, the sea and trees. The question of trees can be two-edged. The Minister should bear in mind that a lot of tree planting over the years has resulted in the elimination of some of the most scenic views in the country. It is all right to have small trees and to have them at a distance which enhances the scenery, but if State plantations are allowed on the side of a road from which there is a magnificent view, that view will, eventually, be eliminated. No consideration seems to be taken of the fact that the very purposes of the planning laws are defeated by not regulating the planting of trees where scenic views will eventually be blocked. I would like the Minister to look at that area of the Planning Act.
I was told in the Dáil in reply to a question that county councils should take care when cutting hedgerows at this time of the year. It is a subject I have raised continuously for 20 years as a Member of both Houses of the Oireachtas. We are totally irresponsible in our attitude to wildlife habitats. Through the months of April and May, when birds are nesting and other wildlife breeding, hedge cutting was carried out by local authorities without any regulation, control or regard for birds or other wildlife. It is a disgrace that there is no regulation, the Wildlife Act, 1976, has never been enforced. I know the Minister issued a directive recently to local authorities not to do this type of work during the breeding season, but it was ignored. What does the Minister intend doing to enforce the law because many of these species are endangered? The recent Green 2000 report indicated that there are now 30 endangered species of bird life in this country. I am sure a lot of that is due to the irresponsible attitude of people who burn mountain sides and demolish hedgerows during the breeding season. The Minister for the Environment should take responsibility for that. It may be said that it is the responsibility of the Department of Finance, through the Office of Public Works or the wildlife service, but if they have not done it then the Minister has a responsibility to see that it is done.
I am delighted to see the renewed commitment to public sector housing. As a member of a local authority for a number of years I was worried that it had gone off the agenda. I was lucky enough to be housed in a local authority house in the late 1950s and I know the value of public sector housing. At present over 25,000 people are in need of public sector housing. In my own county alone there are approximately 300. Let us not fool ourselves, only a small dent is being made so we must continue to address this problem the scale of which can be measured from my county. We could have taken one-twelfth of this year's total national allocation to tackle the problems there which has reached crisis proportions. People are living in mobile homes, caravans, and the poorest accommodation and no matter how much money is spent, it is well spent. When it comes to public sector housing I am not on the side of cutbacks and economic criteria and never will be. For those people who have spoken in the past about public sector cutbacks this is the area they are talking about. One cannot speak with a forked tongue on this subject, one is either for public sector housing or against it. I support it. It is vitally important that the attack has been made on the housing waiting list continues unabated. We need 5,000 houses next year, not 3,500. Let us make a real impact. Public sector housing has always been an issue and people must be assured that it will be seriously considered.
At present, group water and sewerage schemes cost £700 per house and £500 per farm. Some £2.5 million has already been allocated and another £1.5 million has been earmarked. One problem is that group water scheme prices and grants are based on 1984 prices.
Between 1981 and 1991 an EC western package scheme helped to defray charges on the national Exchequer. A recent report showed that approximately 50,000 families benefited from that scheme. The European Parliament is reviewing the regulations and requirements for FEOGA grants. In co-operation with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, a new western package scheme must be introduced to help disadvantaged areas. This would allow vital resources to be used so that a proper grant system can be established.
The current cost of installing a group water scheme per house or farm is approximately £3,500 or £4,000. A £1,200 grant covers only between 35 to 40 per cent of the cost. It is important that there is co-operation between the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry so that money can be obtained and that another system, comparable to the western package system, is introduced. I hope that most of this country will be classified as disadvantaged after the Disadvantaged Areas Appeal Panel publishes its report and that we will get the maximum grants in this area.
Local improvement schemes are of great importance to people living in rural areas. However, the money allocated to these schemes has been reduced by £0.5 million, local authorities have noted this fact. This scheme ensures that roads which are not part of the local authority network can be repaired. Therefore, the amount of moneys allocated to this scheme should be increased. It is wrong to penny pinch in this area. Approximately 60 or 70 per cent of this money is recouped from the EC. These schemes are important because they ensure that roads which lead to bogs and isolated houses are repaired. If only two farms benefit, it will be worth while. They have been widely availed of in my own county, as Deputy McGrath knows. It is vital to continue to focus on this issue.
A house improvement grant scheme is needed to alleviate overcrowding. This can arise when tenants purchase local authority houses and need an extra bedroom or bathroom. Old age pensioners who live in vested county council accommodation can also experience overcrowding and an extra bedroom is often necessary. This scheme would also help to reduce unemployment figures because it would help many small builders to survive. When the previous house improvement scheme was abolished, many small builders were in difficulty.
I ask the Minister to consider the shared ownership scheme. It is an excellent scheme, apart from the fact that £1,000 which was recently announced was abolished in relation to rural settlement. Often people are only able to obtain 50 per cent equity. This scheme will help to solve the housing crisis. Therefore, a barrier should not be erected. I ask the Minister to consider removing the £1,000 barrier because it will not have any major financial impact. Will the Minister increase the allocation to the works in lieu scheme? It is an excellent scheme for people on local authority housing lists and it has been widely used throughout the country.
Deputy McGrath and I were interested to hear that a considerable amount of money is going to County Sligo and County Leitrim. Westmeath County Council has a number of schemes which need funding. Deputy McGrath and I are interested in initiating the north-west low-lying scheme which is an extension of the Mullingar regional scheme. It serves Ballinacarrig, my home area, and Moyvore and Ballymore, Deputy McGrath's home area. The Minister will receive our full support for this scheme. It will cost only £1.6 million and will serve many people.
Petty cash.
It is petty cash when one considers the overall budget.
It would take more than the total allocation for new starts this year.
This is an important area. if Deputy Doyle knew it, she would be 500 per cent behind us.
I would also give it to this area.
Another area which needs consideration is the Moate sewerage scheme and the Annagh reservoir pipeline which cost £1.7 million. A tender has been sent to the Department of the Environment. The Mullingar regional scheme, from Drummond to Killucan, must also be considered. It costs £415,000. The file on these schemes has been in the Department of the Environment for five or six years and I would like the Minister to shake the dust off it.
Another scheme which needs cosideration is the Mullingar main drainage extension to serve the Dublin and Ardmore roads. That would cost only £10 million and I would ask the Minister to keep Westmeath high on the priority list for the forthcoming year.
I presume that Deputy Penrose has asked Deputy McGrath's question. I ask the Deputies to try to keep the questions as short as possible. I still have a list of 12 Members who wish to ask questions. The Minister will reply when Deputy McGrath, Deputy Connaughton, Deputy Keogh, Depty Doyle, Deputy Smith, Deputy Boylan and Deputy Nolan have asked their questions.
It is difficult to follow my constituency colleague when he has stolen all my thunder.
The Deputy must support him.
Nonetheless, I will try to add my small voice to some of the issues which Depty Penrose mentioned. I agree with the shopping list he has given to the Minister. I wish to mention the water supply which serves the area of Ballymore. The Department of the Environment might be interested to know that Ballymore is unique. This is the second time it has been mentioned in the Houses of the Oireachtas this week, although for different reasons. It is probably unique in Europe in that there is a main sewage system in Ballymore but no main water supply.
It could only happen there.
That must be put right quickly. The chairman of the county council is from that area, he is retiring on Monday and he was hoping to hear the good news. He is a member of the Minister's party so maybe the Minister could convey the news to him before Monday, the final session of the council. He would be delighted as we all would. It is only £1.6 million.
On subhead B.2. I want a straight answer with regard to disabled persons' grants. The Department subsidises the local authorities in this regard. Are they means tested? Let us clarify it once and for all.
No.
Therefore, will the Minister send a directive to Westmeath County Council not to means test those grants? The council should also re-examine the cases of people refused over the years. The system has worked unfairly. I am glad to have got that definite answer and I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Stagg.
My colleague, Deputy Doyle, made the point clearly when she expressed her disgust that there would be no amenity grants for 1992 or 1993. She indicated to the Minister that perhaps he should exert more pressure at Cabinet meetings and make sure that they are again included.
I want to mention rates support grants particularly because County Westmeath has a major problem each year trying to balance its books. The rates support grant, in real terms, has fallen by about £1 million since 1985 in Westmeath County Council. The Minister will tell me that services provided then do not have to be provided now, etc. I have taken that — and inflation — into account and we are precisely £1.1 million down on the figure to which we should be entitled at 1985 rates.
How does the the Minister decide the rate support grants for a county? What criteria are used? The figures are printed for various counties and there seems to be various discrepancies. Is it based on population? Is it based on length of roads? Maybe it is based on the rate support network originally in place?
The political colour of the county chairman perhaps.
May the council make a case to the Department of the Environment? Can the Minister clarify all that for us in his reply? He should bear in mind the tremendous burdens placed on local autorities in recent times, the most vexed question in our council at the moment relates to the Abattoirs Act, 1988, which imposed £122,000 per annum on Westmeath County Council. That is a colossal amount of money to impose on a relatively small council. It is the result of legislation and if Westmeath County Council is to implement it that will be the cost. What will be done about it? That is in addition to the Control of Dogs Act, and others which have added a tremendous burden to the expenditure of county councils and causing problems for them.
Courthouses were mentioned earlier. That is another imposition and we are now faced with a charge of something like £200,000 to provide a courthouse in Athlone on top of existing costs. Deputy Prenrose mentioned improvement works in lieu of local authority housing. That is an excellent idea. It is a scheme which should be expanded rapidly. However, as the scheme is expanded the Department should give a block grant to the county council to spend as it sees fit. It should not have to come back to the Department of the Environment to get approval for any expenditure over £10,000. Trust the county councils. Rely on them to do the work and to get the best value for money. Give them the block grant and let them get on with the job.
He will privatise that too before he is finished. We will all be privatised before the Minister of State, Deputy Stagg finishes.
If the Deputy had her way we would.
I am amazed at the conversion.
If Deputy Doyle would allow her colleague to continue there would be hope for the rest of the Members to have their questions answered before we finish.
Thank you, chairman, for protecting me. In relation to the powers given to local authorities I am delighted that the Minister said he will be working over the next few years to devolve even more responsibility and authority to local level, and to remove as many as possible of the controls and other restricitions which have inhibited the growth of a stronger local government system in this country. That is one of the ways it can be done, local improvement works in lieu of council housing, and give them autonomy to do what they like. I also suggest that the Minister should give a block grant for council housing to the local authority. Give Westmeath County Council, for example, £1 million pounds this year to spend on local authority housing and tell it not to come back to the Department saying it has various schemes to carry out. Let the council decide where the money is to be spent let the Department do a retrospective audit to find out if it got value for money. It is a way of giving it more authority in deciding what it does.
The question of county roads has been covered adequately. I could add to it but I will not because other Members want to speak.
The final issue is in relation to thatched houses, for which there is an allocation this year, I cannot recall what it is but it is under subhead B.2.
It has decreased.
It has decreased. My small involvement in this issue is when I was contacted a year and a half ago by somebody owning a thatched house which was in need of renovation. The Department told me a grant of £2,000 was available to help with that work. Unfortunately, this had been a lovely thatched house and needed to be completely redone, the cost would be in excess of £8,000. The family could not raise that kind of money. There are extra ongoing expenses in relation to a thatched house, for example, the house insurance cost is three or four times higher than that of an ordinary house. The figure of £2,000 was set quite a number of years ago and perhaps it could be reviewed. I would not like to think that many of those gorgeous thatched houses around the country would be wiped out. There was quite a nice one in my area in Rathowen, which was changed over the last 12 months because the grant was not adequate to meet the cost of replacing it. That is a shame.
Did you give them planning permission to change it?
Do not ask awkward questions, Deputy.
I hope the Minister will examine that.
As we have now taken questions from three Members I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Stagg to reply.
The first point raised concerned the number of persons on the needs list. The 1991 needs list was operted until recently and showed the number of families at about 23,000 nationally. The new review of needs was carried out on 31 March 1993 and completed on that day with the requirement that all the figures would be with the Department on 30 April 1993. However, all these are not yet in.
It never ceases to amaze me that local authorities, who are fully aware of the needs in their area, will not supply information like this to the Department, it is the basis on which their allocation will be met. A number of local authorities still have not made their returns for the assessments carried out on 31 March 1993, despite repeated requests for that information. The indications are that the needs list now stands at about 28,000 nationally. There are various ways of providing to meet that case. This year there will be a direct build of 200 that were not started last year. Twenty-five per cent of the total allocation last year was not started by local authorities. One local authority was allocated 92 and only three houses were started last year. It is a shame.
Where?
In Dublin, in that case.
That is appalling.
In my own constituency, of the 20 houses allocated none was started. It is not just in Dublin because 25 per cent of the total allocation nationally was not taken up last year. That was rolled over into 1993 and they were entitled to do that. We have 3,500 this year plus 250 from last year, a total start requirement of 3,750. I want to make it clear — and we have informed local authorities of this — that if they do not start the houses this year they will lose them. We will be carrying out a review next month and if we are not satisfied in July that local authorities will start their allocation, the allocation will be moved elsewhere.
As well as the provision of that direct build or purchase, the voluntary sector, with the capital lands scheme and the rental subsidy scheme, will also provide approximately 1,000 houses this year. The shared ownership scheme will account for 1,000 houses. The works in lieu scheme, will provide about 250 and casual vacancies will account for 3,400. The casual vacancy figure will go up considerably in 1994 because vacancies will be created by housing people from units of accommodation with perhaps one or two bedrooms and now needing three or possibly four. There will be additional casual vacancies arising from the building programme going ahead. The most important thing, arising from all these aspects of the scheme, is that about 16,000 families will be housed in 1993 and 1994. We will only feel the effects of the new build programme in 1994. All aspects of the plan for social housing are now under scrutiny and review. They arise from the difficulties brought to our notice by local authorities operating the various aspects of the scheme. They will be taken into account, including the points raised today about the limit on the works in lieu scheme. This scheme has a block grant available for its operation, with a £10,000 limit. Perhaps the limit is too low but I am not in a position to say whether this will be changed. It will be examined in the context of a review. Likewise, a block grant is available for housing.
I cannot understand why there is not a much larger uptake by local authorities of the works in lieu scheme. In fact what Deputy Nealon said earlier indicates that there are many houses available that could be brought up to an unacceptable standard under this scheme. It has many merits, people can stay in their own place and are not uprooted from a rural area to a town. I urge Deputies who may be members of a local authority to make better use of a scheme that is also very good value for money. It usually works better in rural areas by keeping people there and not denuding those areas. That scheme is not being used to its fullest extent although there are some indications that it is being better used this year than previous years. The Minister and I have stressed its importance and benefits.
Could that system be combined with shared ownership? For example, if there is a habitable house in the countryside and somebody is interested in buying it and can get it under shared ownership, could he or she then qualify for that grant to upgrade the house?
A person living in a council house at present who wants to move to a house that is not fit, can avail of that grant. The council can bring the house up to standard and he or she then gives the house back to the council for reletting. This scheme is being used by the resettlement people in Clare. Other authorities are also using it but it is not being used to its full extent. The scheme is available and it gives the taxpayer good value for money. It gives the community good value in the sense that the community member and family stay in the area.
The big impact of the changes will be seen in 1994 when the building programme comes on stream. We realise that the programme is a recognition of a very serious problem because 28,000 families is a huge number of people assessed as being unable to provide housing from their own resources. We are tackling that in a very positive way. I believe that at the end of the four year programme the crisis will have been reduced to manageable proportions. There will be a continuing problem because new people will constantly come on stream who will have to be provided for and that problem will have to be dealt with in various ways.
The Minister, Deputy Smith, dealt earlier with the house improvement grant and I do not need to elaborate on that. The merits and desirability of such a grant scheme are obvious. The provision of funding and the priority we set at this point in that there are 28,000 people without any houses, is a matter that must be considered in that context.
We effectively increased the disabled person's grant from £5,000 to £8,000 on 1 March of this year. The recoupment, which is 50 per cent went from £2,500 to £4,000. Therefore, the grant increased from £5,000 to £8,000. Likewise, the essential repairs grant was increased from £600 to £900 and thereby the grants have increased from £1,200 to £1,800. They are very important. I was asked if local authority members do not use their powers, if the management of a local authority impose a means test locally for the disabled person's grant. Members of any such local authority should exercise the powers vested in them by law to ensure that their wishes are contained within any scheme. There is no question of a means test in relation to the recoupment my Department gives to the local authority on the grants themselves.
The point was made by Deputy Penrose that the £1,000 for shared ownership should be abolished. I strongly disagree. The fact that there is a requirement on people to have £1,000 for shared ownership is a demonstration of their earnestness in the serious matter of acquiring a home. I would have serious difficulty in recommending a 100 per cent loan. That would be dangerous from the point of view of the applicant, one would be drawing in applicants who simply would not be able to meet their responsibility. I do not support the point made by my party colleague in that regard. The £1,000 is there and should be kept there.
The demand for thatching grants reduces dramatically year by year and the provision will meet all cases. There is no backlog arising from under-provision. The figure went from 439 in 1991 to 299 in 1992 and the provision will meet that. That has covered all the cases.
Will the grant be increased?
Thee is no proposal to increase the grant. Again, I take the Deputy's point about other works required for the house, I hope when we get our building programme well underway, when the housing list is down and we are examining home improvement grants, that there may be something. The urban renewal scheme was referred to as having a toy town image in some places. There are various opinions about different forms of architecture. I went to see an experimental social housing programme in Vienna recently. Most people would be horrified at the design although I was excited by it.
Was it the greenery?
My officials were not impressed by the design. There are various opinions about architecture. I am mindful of the fact that when the Custom House from which they operate was unveiled in Dublin, Napper Tandy organised a riot against the design of what was called "this horrible building in Dublin". We now regard the Custom House as one of the architectural gems in our city.
We will not be around to see it through.
It is rather difficult for me when one gets into aesthetic debates and lofty ideals. While we should respect and understand heritage that should not mean that it never changes because change is a constant thing. One applies the best of what one understands of the past to dealing with the future. That does not rule out imagination, innovation and the different things we can do.
Lottery funding was raised by Deputy Doyle, Deputy Keogh, Deputy McGrath and others. There is an impression being created — I would not say deliberately because I have the greatest respect for my opponents in terms of their integrity in these matters — that this money has disappeared and that we do not know where it is. We are asked why we are not spending more on amenity grants. Youth, sport, recreation and amenity received £26 million. Arts, culture and national heritage received just over £20 million. Some £6 million was allocated to the Irish language and £35 million to health and welfare. That is a total of £89 million. Deputies will recall a great debate a couple of years ago about where the lottery funds should go. A survey was carried out and people suggested that they wanted to have a considerably higher proportion of this money devoted to health. At present, a high proportion is allocated to the mentally handicapped. There is no argument about where the resources are going. If Deputies says they want more for amenity purposes for local authorities, they should in turn say they want to reduce the sport recreation amenity, health and the cultural or heritage money. At least tell me which one of these areas is to be be reduced. I will certainly go to the Government with that consensus.
For example, £3 million was spent on building primary schools.
From the national lottery?
Yes.
The lottery is being used as a substitute for Exchequer funding. There is a limit to what can be done in that regard. Amenity and recreational grants have an important function in small rural communities.
Deputy Doyle, you can ask a question in a few minutes.
He asked to be told——
It is quite clear from the way I have explained this that all the areas covered and prescribed in the Act are supported by lotery funds——
The Minister lost the battle.
——and that it has wide public support.
The Minister lost out on lottery funding.
I could have a small word with the Deputy about the amenity grants.
Certainly any time, preferably over a gin and tonic.
A few years ago, there was a raging row at local authority level about the necessity for more powers and a request that decisions in relation to lottery funds would be made in local areas. The then Minister for the Environment asked local authorities to give him a priority list. Each of those enormously courageous councils seeking to have new powers added to their existing function said that they would not decide——
Why should they?
——and that they should submit the whole list to the Minister.
That is unfair to the local authorities.
Allow the Minister to finish.
(Interruptions).
The Minister lost this one at the Cabinet table and we do not accept what he is saying.
I am delighted to know——
Restore the grants to the local authority.
——that the Opposition Deputies are prepared to tell me the areas of mental handicap, art and culture that they want reduced——
Give us our grants. They do not need to be rubber-stamped from central Government.
May I ask the Deputy to refrain and allow the Minister to continue?
If there was an impending election they would be disturbed fairly fast by a certain sector.
——they did that very thing themselves the year before that.
There is no need to get excited about this. Deputy Connaughton had the authority to do this in Galway and he passed it back to the Minister for the Environment. The demand for more power, as I understand it from a great number of people, is the ability to say "yes" but never the strength to say "no". Governments have to set priorities. If the Deputy is not prepared to set them at local level, the Government will. We are recording——
We say yes, give us the funding.
We take the odium and a Fianna Fáil Minister hands out the money. Give the local authorities the money and they will make all the decisions needed.
Deputy Doyle, please allow the Minister to finish.
The Minister is off the rails on that.
If you, Deputy Boylan, are off the rails I can do nothing about it.
Deputies are happy enough with the provision at present from lottery funds for all these purposes. If additional funds are available in future, I will be quite happy to restore an amenity scheme. At present, the pressure, in particular for the development of the mental handicap services, has merited an increased and enhanced provision. I do not think when we come down to the real basis of argument on this that Deputies differ fundamentally from me in ensuring that the purpose for which that money is spent has a greater priority, however difficult it is to face up to it in terms of——
It is substituting for Exchequer funding. The Minister's argument is disingenuous and it will not wear on us. The Minister should not be emotive and try to blackmail us by pretending we would rather not give it to the mentally handicapped but to a local scheme.
Deputy Doyle——
That is not the issue. The Minister is disingenuous and he deserves to be brought to book over it.
This brings me on to another argument, Chairman. The Opposition Deputies have an extraordinary capacity for suggesting that there are many different resources about which nobody knows. There is a pretence that there is more money in the lottery fund than there is. The rate support grant argument almost gives the impression that there is some discretion at my level as to how these funds are allocated. The evidence is crystal clear that local authorities each year are allocated on the basis of the previous year's allocation. There is no discretion on my part——
The Minister cannot twist the arm of the Minister for Finance the discretion rests with the Minister.
The argument has been made for years that it was on an unfair basis, we had a fiscal study and following the result the report was submitted to each local authority. The local authorities which benefit from that report are anxious to have it implemented. Those local authorities which do not benefit from it are totally against the report.
And the Minister is afraid to make the difficult decision which the councillors have to make. He is afraid to say "no" to some and "yes" to others.
I fought my own battle for the rate support grant and I got the Deputy an increase commensurate with the rate of inflation for rate support grants.
——even if we do not agree with the Minister.
Deputy Ó Cuív, I do not know whether it is a point of order.
Certain Deputies are wasting time. There is a question and answers session that is not part of the original——
The Minister has the right to reply. With all due respect I think he should be allowed to reply to Deputies on all sides of the House.
I accept that but——
That is the position and that is my ruling.
——some of us are waiting our turn.
With all due respect, people have been sitting in this Chamber since 10 o'clock waiting to put questions. Other people came in at 12.30 p.m. and thought they should be taken immediately, which I will not allow. Members who were here at the start, irrespective of who they are, will get their opportunity.
The argument was put forward by Deputy McGrath when he compared figures dating back to 1985 — of course he did not take into account the changes since then: supplementary welfare, ACOT, vocational education committee pensions and arterial drainage demands have since been removed.
It is important to realise the level of resources available to local authorities in general, whose current spending this year is about £1,000 million. Up to 40 per cent of that is provided by the national Exchequer and the balance by commercial rates and other funding such as service charges, housing and other receipts to the council. There is £1,000 million in the current expenditure of local authorities, not counting the capital of £600 million for capital development. In the context of the resources available, the demand for reduction in taxation and all the other services provided, there is an understanding in the public mind that substantial additional resources are not available. However local authorities are not taking heed of the fact that considerable resources are available. We are enhancing those at national level and through the EC in every way we can. We demonstrated in our Estimate the percentage increases in the capital areas for which we have responsibility, and which are fundamentally affecting the quality of life by constructing bypasses and in the sanitary services area.
Deputy Deasy raised a number of specific matters in relation to Waterford city. I have decided that, for the present at least, there are no resources available for the high level bridge in Waterford. The present operational programme for national primary roads has covered about 20 per cent of the route, so without making any further changes or adjustments 80 per cent of that route has still to be covered.
I will, however, undertake to commission a traffic survey and provide some resources for that in Waterford so that we can take longer term decisions. I recognise that in the long term, one bridge for the city will perhaps not be satisfactory, but there are many other competing demands, across the country, of which we must take account. It is important, in the longer term, to have the basis for decisions which will be made when resources are available, to deal with such problems.
I accept the point the Deputy made in relation to the failure of the local authority to comply with my wishes and directives in relation to hedge cutting. The question of hedge cutting, and the lethal way in which wildlife is dealt with in April and May by local authorities is disgraceful and unacceptable. I will see to what extent I can take further action to ensure that these matters are dealt with at the time of the year when there is no danger to wildlife.
And private land owners.
Clearly, the responsibility in many cases rests with land owners.
The Deputy also raised the issue of planning for forestry development. For developments over 200 hectares planning permission is required. The grants provided by the Department of Agriculture stipulate a number of conditions where forest plantations have to be a certain distance from roads and rivers. This depends on the type of plantation — if it is a broad leaf plantation it will only obscure the view at certain times of the year, which is acceptable. Development imposes some change, which one must accept, and one must find a balance. If we find that forestry developments of a lesser hectarage than that for which planning permission is required constitute a need for further planning intervention we will consider that.
That is necessary.
The Minister should do that now.
Members will be delighted to know that we hope to have the Callan by-pass underway next year, there were substantial objections — which have been ironed out — to that route. We always require public participation and support from local communities to enable us to proceed with many of these schemes as quickly as possible. We cannot acquire lands without co-operation, I understand that all these matters have now been ironed out and that contract documents are being prepared.
I had no idea, coming from a constitutency where there are practically no difficulties and no competition between members of the different parties, that Westmeath was a problem constituency for competition of this kind and that we would have to discuss every single item of local authority development. Suffice to say, that if the competition is so keen, I will be under pressure to provide local water and sewerage schemes. I was surprised to see that there was an area which was able to provide a sewerage scheme for years but had no water scheme — it tempts me a little but I will refrain from that.
We will meet these demands to the extent we can, which is why we have a 65 per cent increase this year in provisions for water and sewerage schemes throughout the country. Deputy Sargent in his earlier comments, referred to roads as the area where we gave the greatest increase. He will be infinitely happy to know that the greatest increase was given in the area about which he and many others are quite concerned, which is sanitary services, where there was a 65 per cent increase.
Deputy Penrose also raised local improvement schemes. We have been able to maintain — although there was a slight reduction this year — resources for this purpose, even though there are long standing arguments against provisions in this area. As many local elected representatives will be aware, they often have to fight very hard to make provisions in these areas for outlying roads serving farms only. We will continue to make provision for them but we have to obtain all the resources from the national Exchequer. There is no possibility of any EC funding for these purposes, it is not as easy as it looks.
Finally, I will refer to a point raised by Deputies Doyle, Keogh, and many others, in relation to county roads. I indicated in an earlier reply that we would ensure that the next development plan takes account of some of our needs in this regard. However, at present, we are providing £63 million directly for the non-national roads, local authorities, from their own resources, provide about the same amount, which means approximately £120 million is being spent on the county road systems. The Exchequer contribution has grown from a total of 18 per cent, to 37 per cent, while the local authority contributions over the same four or five year period has decreased by almost 30 per cent.
The local authorities are not financially autonomous.
The first message we have from that is that the State has taken up the cudgels and we are now seeking additional resources from Community level to support that element. Approximately £2,000 per kilometre for roadway is the figure provided. I indicated earlier that I am extremely anxious to find additional resources for these purposes, but we must make radical changes in the way we manage our county road system. I visited counties recently where extraordinary initiatives are being taken, involving the local community, farmers and residents, in dealing with the drainage problems and hedge management.
There is no way that resources will be available because of the dispersed nature of our population and the roads we have to cover, compared to our partners in the Community. Where we have one resident per kilometre, France has two and the UK has four.
They have a totally different financial base to resource this. Our efficiency in the management of these roads must come into question and I accept that there are county roads which are unacceptable to the community. However, that problem did not develop overnight and it will not be solved overnight. It will require not only the additional resources that I am actively pursuing but the wider commitment of local authorities, landowners and the community at large. I am conscious of problems as I have visited the roads throughout the country and I am dealing with it at national and EC level.
The following example will put the bad condition of county roads in perspective. A road between Mountbellew and Newbridge was resurfaced a fortnight ago. According to the engineering staff of Galway County Council if future funding is no greater than it has been in the past seven or eight years, we can expect to see that road again resurfaced in the year 2048, in 55 years' time. That is the next lick of tar the road will receive and it gives an indication of how bad the system is.
That is 50——
Fifty-five years to be exact.
That would mean that over £100,000 would be collected at local and national level for each kilometre during that period.
Seemingly.
That would be extraordinary.
That is the situation for Galway County Council because there is a huge county road network in Galway.
I must abolish that council.
No, the minister's calculation is wrong. We are taking into account what has been done in the county over the last seven or eight years.
It is a recycling.
No.
It is a recycling. That is when my neighbours next expect to see the tar sprayer.
There has been praise today of the Government's housing policy and I accept that there is an improved attitude to that issue this year. If we had continued the policy of the last four or five years, our housing list would be out of control. It is ironic that many young couples who are trying to buy a house believe that there is more consideration in this country for cattle than for people. As a result of recent agricultural grants a farmer who invests £20,000 in housing cattle is likely to receive half of that amount back in a grant of £10,000. A young couple who build a house receive only £3,000. Many people are angry about that. The new house grant should be higher. I appreciate that it was increased by £1,000 in the budget. I was told that as the Minister for Finance had increased VAT on concrete products the grant for new house purchases was increased. I hope the grant will not be reduced now that the VAT has been reduced.
Do not suggest such a thing.
VAT has not been reduced. It was increased from 10 per cent to 12.5 per cent.
Yes, but it was proposed to increase it to 21 per cent. However, a grant of £3,000 on an investment of £25,000, £30,000 or more is not a huge boost for the provision of housing.
I have noticed in Galway County Council that people on unemployment assistance, no matter what case they have, do not benefit from the shared ownership scheme. There is a belief that they do not have the capacity to repay the money. I understand that the Minister proposes to announce a house purchase scheme for local authority tenants. I sincerely hope the new scheme will be more flexible than the last.
Will the Minister inform the committee of the total cost of local authority repairs, the collection of rents and other services? Would it not make financial sense to make the buy out system more attractive as most local authority tenants would than be responsible for the maintenance of their houses? Most people would favour that. Obviously financial pressures and capacity to repay loans would be important considerations in the new buy out system. Can the Minister give the figure for the cost of the buy out scheme?
Nearly £2 million.
The Minister of State mentioned the low level of participation in the improvements in lieu scheme. There is a low level of participation in Galway also which surprises me as, like Deputy McGrath, I consider it to be a very good scheme. However, people living in bad housing accommodation who are not on the housing list must apply and be assessed. Perhaps we must wait for that process to be completed and by next year there may be more participants.
Several Deputies mentioned the lack of adequate water supplies. Although it is not fair to hold this Minister responsible for the problem, I believe that a previous Minister missed the opportunity to secure EC finances for the provision of water schemes. I would have thought that no Irish Government, in the course of negotiations of aid packages — in which I was involved during the early 1980s — would have accepted Structural or Cohesion Funds unless it could also secure grant aid to provide water to the many thousands of rural and urban families who do not have running water. Several human rights issues have been raised in both Houses during the last couple of months and, of course, many aspects of the law had to be changed. However, there is no greater denial of basic human rights than to have 100,000 people in Ireland in 1993 living without piped running water. It is a disgrace.
That is not true.
They do not have piped water.
Deputy Connaughton, about 20 members wish to speak and the Deputy is making a Second Stage speech. Members have waited since 10 a.m. to ask questions and they are entitled to do so.
Perhaps I got carried away but I am surprised that the Minister contradicted me. People are living without running water and we have no hope of solving that if the Minister for the Environment does not believe it.
On a point of order — I am conscious that I am only standing in on this committee for my colleague, Deputy Yates, but both I, and many Deputies involved in county councils have a great deal of interest in this topic. I knew that the original agenda was that the Minister would be questioned programme by programme but I gather the meeting decided to leave it to a general question. I suggest that this is not the best means to use for future committees because it leads to a general debate. If this had been discussed programme by programme, every Member would have had a chance to comment on earlier programmes and we would have known if adequate time had been given to an Estimate of just under £1 billion. It probably requires more than four or five hours and that would be evident if we had discussed it programme by programme. It would also mean that there would have been a more concentrated examination by the Members of the committee.
As Deputy Flaherty will be aware, we are operating on a trial and error basis with regard to Estimates. We found that this practice worked well last week on the Estimates for the Department of Finance and the Office of Public Works, but a number of Deputies, as Deputy Flaherty said, will not have their questions raised which is regrettable. However, the Minister said at the outset that if any questions were unanswered today, he would be willing to answer them via a letter from his Department or by other means.
I wish to make a couple of general comments on the remarks by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment Deputy Stagg. I agree with him about the slow response of local authorities in relation to new house starts and, as a county councillor, I was embarrassed. I assure the Minister of State that the message we brought from him was clearly heard and I would be disappointed if we were behind schedule as a result. I am glad that the Minister intends to re-examine the social housing area. I referred to the roads already and while I am not happy with the approach, I do not wish to dwell on this.
I was getting concerned about the Deputy's lack of interest in the environment.
There are a couple of questions relating to other areas that I would like to ask at this stage, because I am afraid we may not get an opportunity to discuss them. With regard to subheads A1-A7 of the administrative budget, I am concerned about subhead A5, under which ENFO is included in the Estimate. I am concerned about the role of ENFO and I would like the Minister to give us some idea of what this funding is, its intention in relation to that funding and so on. There is also an increased provision under subhead A7 for consultancy projects related to the Department's functions. I am concerned — I have a lot of time for consultants' figures because part of my business at one stage was vaguely in relation to consultancy — in getting value for money for reports first, but I would also like to see the direction in relation to consultance projects, for this and the coming year. An additional amount was made available for recycling — which I welcome — but I would like the spending of that money to be better analysed. I also referred earlier to the Environmental Protection Agency, but since then I have not had a reply. I did not understand what the Minister was trying to tell me — obviously that is my fault — about the £618,000 provisional outturn for last year, so could he also refer to that?
I thought backbenchers would have had a chance to speak by now. I am not sure if the Minister still intends to come in at the end to answer some of the questions asked in the initial contribution, such as the Environmental Protection Agency——
The Chairman said that we are operating on a trial and error basis and I intended to deal with these issues at the end. I had no idea that the intervening comments would be spread out to this extent — I was expecting more of a questions and answers session. I recognise that the Front Bench spokespersons were a little neglected in terms of their earlier contributions, but I will deal with all of them.
That will save us repeating ourselves. I would specifically like answers to those questions relating to the Environmental Protection Agency and the grant to the universities research group on the environment. A brief reference was made to bypasses and there is an ongoing difficulty, which is causing a lot of delay in terms of negotiations, in that businesses or commercial interests are not compensated for being bypassed. I ask the Minister briefly — I cannot develop this, even though it is causing concern in many areas — apart from compensation allowed to farmers and private residences for being disturbed or dislocated to allow some measure of compensation for businesses who will suffer a dramatic decline in customers because they may suddenly find themselves off a primary route.
The disabled person's grant was also referred to and perhaps the Minister may consider extending the remit of that grant to other people, apart from the wheelchair disabled. There are other categories who need special help, for example, in terms of downstairs bedrooms because they cannot walk upstairs. There are still difficulties at local authority level in that the concept of improving the house and making it wheelchair-friendly is still the main basis on which these grants are allocated, rather than having a broader understanding of the disabled.
The standards in rent regulations were announced by the Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, in connection with the charter of tenants' rights. The local authorities do not have the resources to enforce those regulations and if they are not enforced, the Minister is wasting the paper — recycled or otherwise — they are printed on. The Minister must make the human and financial resources available for local authorities to comply with his requirements in this area, and I ask him to ensure that any new legislation from the Department of the Environment will be implemented as a result of giving adequate resources to the local authority. The Abattoirs Act was referred to earlier, many Acts were passed over the last ten years for which no extra resources were given to implement them, it is wasting everyone's time and frustrates the object of the exercise of the legislation or regulation concerned.
Thatching grants are dear to my heart and I ask the Minister to consider increasing the amount allocated. Planning permission should be required to replace a thatched house with a conventional roof and the Minister should try to meet the financial gap between rethatching and the lesser sum that a tiled or slate roof would cost the applicant so that there is no temptation to rip off the thatched roof on quality thatched houses. County Wexford — as the Minister may be aware — has the greatest percentage of thatched houses in the country and we introduced, at my proposal some years ago a thatching grant. Other local authorities, including Westmeath County Council — my collegues referred to it earlier — should consider supplementing the Department's thatching grant with a local one to bridge the monetary gap between the laying of a conventional and a thatched roof.
Will the Minister reconsider the destruction of the wooden works in Wexford as part of the main drainage scheme? My colleague, the Minister of State Deputy Browne will know I have been consistent for many years on this issue. We welcome the main drainage scheme and the work — it is overdue — but the cosmetic need of covering the interceptive sewer should not be done at the expense of the wooden works and our quay front in Wexford town. We have a beautiful Goergian quay front and one of only three wooden works left in the British Isles. I ask the Minister not to destroy part of our maritime heritage on the justification of the installation of the interceptive sewer as part of our main scheme. I also ask the Minister to give a commitment that he will review that aspect of the scheme so that it will not happen.
Four Members intimated that they wish to ask questions, perhaps we will allow them to do this so that the Minister can answer them all in his final reply. Is that satisfactory?
That is satisfactory.
I have spoken to the Minister on a number of occasions regarding my concern about the regional and county road network and I welcome his indication here today that as allocation will be made available from the Structural Funds. The regional and county roads are as important to the rural economy as the main arteries are to the national economy. In its submission, relating to the national development plan, the north west review group indicated, that the greatest problem facing that area and the Border area is the poor condition of regional and county roads. The unacceptable condition of access roads to factories, places of employment, waterways and tourist amenities is damaging the rural economy. The Minister must make provision for a substantial increase in funding for such development, beginning next January. The fabric of rural areas depends on a proper road network. I appeal to the Minister to pay particular attention to the need to improve regional and county roads.
I commend the Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, on the disabled person's grant which has brought comfort to many needy people. However, problems arise when county council tenants try to avail of this grant. The council is responsible for improvements, but it cannot recoup the cost, unlike a person living in a private house. Perhaps the Minister could clarify this point?
The Minister should not decry the former home improvement scheme, its success is borne out by the number of applicants.
Sun lounges and fancy rooms at the back of big houses, while farm labourers and taxpayers paid for it.
The Minister of State, should not decry the scheme.
Come to Finglas to see the improvements.
Some people will always try to avail of a new scheme. However, the overall good should not be over-shadowed by a few people. The Government is obsessed with hidden wealth. Pehaps these people are close to the Government——
Hidden or unhidden wealth does not relate to this issue. I have given you the opportunity to ask questions. Other Deputies wish to speak.
Regarding group water schemes, an EC Directive stated farmers must ensure that water supplied to their dairies reaches a certain standard by 1 January 1994. They cannot comply with this group water scheme because the Department of the Environment has not said whether it will provide grant aid for the filteration or whether it will direct farmers to join a regional scheme. A definite decision must be made.
There has been much parochialism at this meeting. In Lagan and Belturbet, County Cavan, the inhabitants of seven isolated houses have applied for the group water scheme grant. The Minister is under the impression that everybody has a water supply, but this is not the case. The cost per household totals £2,500, excluding the grant. This is unacceptable as these people have been excluded from various schemes.
Members mentioned roads, particularly those in County Cavan. I ask Deputies and the Minister to read the scale of local charges outlined in the Sunday Tribune of 20 June 1993. The people of County Cavan pay their way, but have been penalised by this and previous Governments. The allocation of grants to Cavan County Council has been reduced annually. There has not been a reduction in services to counties not committed to service charges. County Cavan has the highest collection rate in the country.
This Government is not committed to the improvement of county roads. National roads total 6 per cent of the total road network, a significant figure. They carry 37 per cent of traffic and receive 54 per cent of grant aid. The county roads and regional roads, about which I have complained since I became a Member of the Dáil, total 94 per cent of the total network. They carry 63 per cent of traffic and receive 46 per cent of grant aid.
Do you have a question, Deputy Boylan? You are depriving your colleagues of time.
This is an important issue. If one allocated grant aid on the basis of road usage, 37 per cent to 63 per cent ratio, one would transfer £52 million to county roads and the problem would be solved.
I welcome the increase in the allocation for local authority housing. Is it Government policy to discontinue building ghettos? Will the Minister consider a scheme whereby a single rural house would be transfered to the lessee after 20 years, if the lessee gives a commitment to maintain the house for that period? Perhaps the Minister might consider this in cases where a site is provided.
I ask the Minister to consider the question of arrears of local authority rents. There are huge arrears in every local authority which, often, cannot be collected because those who owe money are on social welfare. Will the Minister consider an amnesty for these people if they agree to direct debit system of payment to the local authorities? Rent could be debited from their social welfare cheque. Such measures would generate a positive cash flow and enable people owing £1,000 or £1,500 with an income of £116 per week, to pay the rent in arrears.
I ask the Minister to consider the question of differential rents. I know a family of four on social welfare who paid a higher differential rent than a family with no children because the £12.50 increased it to more than the rebate.
Regarding shared ownership, I ask the Minister to consider the income limit in this regard. There is a gap between the £12,000 income limit and the level which local authorities consider people eligible for an ordinary loan.
Regarding repairs in lieu, I ask the Minister to consider an arrangement with counties with inhabited offshore islands. The £10,000 ceiling, which applies to repairs in lieu should be increased to £14,000 because of the cost of building on an offshore island. This matter is important in County Galway which has a number of heavily populated offshore islands.
What is the situation regarding council houses purchased ten or 15 years ago and in need of repair, but which are excluded from the scheme because they were purchased from a county council? This also applies to vested houses, which are often old and have been in "ownership" of tenants for a long time.
Regarding the thatching grant there should be consultation between the heritage council and the Department of the Environment. The residency rule has meant that some of the best traditional thatched cottages, particularly in places like the Aran Islands, are not maintained because they are ineligible for the thatching grant and are not permanent residences. They would be maintained as houses for letting, etc. if there was some co-ordination and if an agency provided assistance. They are an important part of our heritage.
Deputy Flaherty and Deputy Broughan wish to speak. The Deputy has already spoken for five minutes.
The modern type cottage springing up in Connemara is a blight in the landscape and has no relation to tradition.
Finally, I agree it is important that a percentage of funds be made available from EC Structural Funds for small schemes such as county roads and water and sewerage schemes under certain sizes. This would ensure that the money is not continuously absorbed by the £20 and £30 million schemes. Many small schemes could be implemented with small amounts of money and, therefore, 20 per cent of the money should be kept for schemes under a certain arbitrary limit of £1 million each.
In the housing remedial works for local authority housing there is a provision of £9 million and a total expenditure of £17.2 million, taking into account the direct expenditure of the local authorities. The Minister of State will be aware that Dublin Corporation has recently had an independent review of its stock which indicates work costing over £200 million is required on existing housing stock. Is there any way this will be done in the foreseeable future?
Clearly Dublin could absorb five times this annually. Does the Minister believe as I do, that one of the fundamental problems is that our local authorities operate on an uncommercial rent? It is subsidising housing and while many tenants cannot afford to pay for it, is there not need for a major debate at Government level with the Department of Social Welfare——
Is the Deputy suggesting the rents should be increased?
No, the Minister should listen to me. I said the tenants could not afford it. We should follow the practice in other countries, namely to have a proper social welfare housing subsidy scheme. This would mean that the local authority would get an economic rent, could maintain its housing stock to an adequate level and that tenants who needed it would obtain support from the State.
This is a big issue and there must be a debate with the Department of Social Welfare at Government level to ensure that local authorities are not expected to continue to do the impossible, namely to maintain houses yielding an unecomomic rent. Local authorities in the UK do not have this problem as there is a housing subsidy scheme enabling the local authorities to charge commercial rents.
Deputy, the Order of the House states that the committee must finish at 2 p.m. The Minister will have less than five minutes. Deputy Broughan wishes to put one question as does Deputy Nolan.
I will be as brief as possible. Does the Minister see a role for the Department of the Environment communicating directly with councillors on occasions? Sometimes it appears that messages come through officials slowly and inadequately. Will the Department occasionally consider running seminars directly for councillors to initiate new policy directives?
The Minister made a commitment to me when the Planning Act was before the Dáil that in the planning regulations it would be a requirement of developers to put notices on adjoining buildings of their intention to seek planning permission. I asked a question about this recently and received a less than clear answer. Can I be assured that this will be a new requirement under the regulations? The Bill is pro-development and this is one of the protections the ordinary citizens need.
I am concerned about travellers about whom I spoke to the Minister privately. Schemes are proceeding too slowly, even where there is clearance and refurbishment in good local authorities like Dublin Corporation the pace is too slow.
Finally, on the Eastern by-pass, does the Minister believe it was wise to reject all proposals for a by-pass without having examined the study, which cost £500,000, undertaken by Ove Arup. The tunnel proposal from Ove Arup is an integrated one including roads, traffic management, public transport and traffic calming in areas. Eight to ten local authorities on the north side of Dublin along the route of the N1 have come together and are backing the new proposed tunnel. The Fine Gael group on Dublin County Council, has decided that this is worthy of support. I understand that the Minister is meeting a group in relation to this next week. Does the Minister consider it was wise to reject the proposal before examining that study?
I will allow one question each from Deputy Broughan and Deputy Nolan.
A statement was issued yesterday to the papers by a member of a delegation from Baldoyle which did not reflect the outcome of a meeting on Wednesday, 23 June 1993 with the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Smith.
I was elected by the people of Baldoyle and was a member of that delegation. The Minister received us courteously and listened most sympathetically. He assured the delegation that the problem would be at the top of his priority list. I believe that, given the way administration works, the Minister gave the delegation the biggest commitment an area could get. The bulk of the delegation to whom I spoke agreed. I thank the Minister and hope that next year, out of £120 million it may be possible to allocate £2.4 million to Baldoyle.
I support the comments of my colleagues on travellers. Many people on the north side of Dublin live in third world conditions. A sum of £1.2 million will help, but it is intolerable that people live in conditions which we would not accept in the Third World and something must be done
Regarding the area of recycling may I ask the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Browne, how many grants have been paid over the last three to four years in this area? How does the Minister view the success of this grants scheme? Does he expect that grants will be made available and announced this year? Pehaps the Minister might also give his views on how he sees the whole area of recycling developing over the next few years?
(Wexford): Deputy Keogh and Deputy Doyle have been very persistent in relation to the Environmental Protection Agency and when it might be established. I can advise the committee that it will be formally established next month. The Director General and Directors will be moving to Johnstown Castle almost immediately. A sum of £1 million has been included in the Estimates this year which will cover staff salaries, computer equipment and refurbishment. I believe that Deputy Doyle is aware that a number of problems have arisen with the castle. I understand there will have to be a major refurbishment plan, work will commence in October and it will probably take five or six months to complete. In the meantime it is hoped that the directors and a number of staff will take up residence in the castle. Discussions are taking place with the environmental research unit with a view to early transfer of staff to the castle. Deputy Doyle referred to problems with entrances. I hope to arrange a meeting with the public representatives from Wexford and the directors over the next few weeks to discuss that problem.
Regarding ENFO, Deputy Keogh asked about future developments. This year a sum of £450,000 has been allocated for administration, £170,000 has been paid by the Department of the Environment in wages and £120,000 has been paid by the Office of Public Works for the rent of the premises in Dublin. ENFO has been a major success story. Over the last year practically 1,100 to 1,200 people per week have visited the ENFO centre in Dublin. ENFO sends information to different orgainsations around the country. I would like to see local authorities who have facilities within their libaries to take on board much of the information data that ENFO has and becoming more and more involved.
People have suggested that there should be regional centres and others have suggested that there should be a mobile information service. We are considering all these aspects to see how developments can proceed over the next year. Certainly one development that appeals to me is the library system which is available to local authorities who have the computer system. They are now modernised and I hope that they will become increasingly involved. As a former member of a local authority I believe this is an ideal way for the Department of the Environment and ENFO to become directly involved with local authorities in line with efforts to have local authorities becoming more involved in decisions and administration. Much thought will have to be given to recyling over the next few months. We launched a document recently: "Towards a Recycling Strategy". We received a number of submissions from different people involved in recycling around the country.
Deputy Sargent mentioned Rehab and Kerbside who do a good job but find it difficult to survive financially despite substantial grants from the Department of the Environment. Over the next month we will be allocating £400,000, a 100 per cent increase on last year. In the Department we are examining how to allocate that. A number of projects to which we allocated grants in the past have not survived.
Local authorities should become actively involved in recycling. They are the bodies mainly responsible for refuse collection, and the running of landfill sites and tipheads so they must participate in the process. We have had a number of discussions with local authorities, especially those in major urban centres, to see how to get them more involved.
I accept there are problems in recycling and we are trying to solve them. I hope we can look at more imaginative ways in the months ahead with the support of all local authorities, public representatives and the Department to see how we can garner the expertise required to develop a proper recycling strategy.
To answer Deputy Nolan's question, since 1989 over £1.2 million has been provided for 30 recycling projects around the country. Some of them are still operational, others have not survived. I hope we can gain experience from both sides to see how we can develop that strategy for the future.
The £618,000 Deputy Keogh queried under subhead D.5 last year was expenditure on Stride, the community initiative for research and technology promotion. This year the balance is in subhead D.5, which is £869,000. I acknowledge what Deputy Doyle said. Research and development in the environmental area is urgently required. The Department of Transport, Energy and Communications under the Joule and Thermie programmes are also involved in research and development. The Minister had a meeting with Professor Frank Convery on URGE. We have founded that since it commenced in administration and operation and we are looking at that project to see how to fund it in future. We will be meeting Professor Convery next week or the week after to take it a stage further.
Thousands of jobs could be created in the environmental area.
Deputy Connaughton raised the relation of rent to maintenance and management. A figure of £650 million was spent in the last ten years on maintenance and management of local authority housing. In 1992 £80 million was spent, £42 million in Dublin. The money is made up of 100 per cent of all rents and 40 per cent of sales. In Dublin those figures have to be supplemented with other amounts to make up £42 million.
One must be on the needs list to qualify for the work in lieu scheme, otherwise one must be an applicant for a local authority house. People who have invested in houses which have become unfit over the years qualify if they apply for a council house and are deemed to be in need of council housing. They would qualify for the old vested houses.
The purchase scheme will be announced in two weeks. It will not have a closing date. The other sense in which it is difficult is that the proceeds will be immediately available to local authorities to build further housing. There are about 95,000 tenancies at the moment and we hope to sell between 1,000 and 2,000 per year, yielding between £15 and £20 million per thousand for the building programme.
The last scheme was in 1988. At that time there were 120,000 houses and we sold 30,000, which was satisfactory. The cost of maintenance and management of the remainder went up after we had sold 30,000 which was extraordinary. Much needs to be done in the area of maintenance and management to get value for money.
It is not true that only people in wheelchairs get the disabled person's grant. The largest costs in this area are for extensions for those with two storey houses who cannot live upstairs. Old people and persons with a mental handicap qualify so the position the Deputy outlined is not true. Restrictions may operate at local level but the local elected members can deal with that.
I do not propose to deal with rent books and standards in detail as I have done so this week in response to a parliamentary question from Deputy Doyle.
The policy is that there should not be large scale ghettos. The guidelines say schemes should not have more than 50 houses and that brown field sites, not green field sites, should be used where possible. Dublin Corporation did a good job this year in finding sites for all their programmes within their own boundaries. The purchase scheme will be available within the next two weeks.
The "mark off" system is available through the Department of Social Welfare and in some areas is starting to operate. We have no objection to that. The differential rent scheme is a matter for local authorities. It was devolved to them and there is no central negotiation concerning its details.
It was proposed we might review the limits for works in lieu scheme for offshore islands and raise it to £14,000. I suggest that amount of money is readily available by contacting the Department and there would be no delay.
With regard to travellers, there is no shortage of money to fulfil the demand. I am seriously concerned that local authorities have not put proper programmes in place. We are seing what "carrot and stick" methods might be available to us to assist local authorities in setting up a proper programme.
Refurbishment in Dublin is a problem arising from long years of neglect and ineffective maintenance and management of housing stock. Some £42 million is spent in Dublin on maintenance and management. That is provided from tenants and ratepayers in Dublin city but they do not get good value. I have available to me nationally £17.2 million and £7 million of that went to Dublin. Many of the proposals within the £200 million in the Lord Mayor's commission report are not refurbishment schemes, but management and maintenance and should be within that programme. We met the Commission members yesterday and there was a measure of agreement on that point.
I thank you, Chairman, for the way you sorted out the problems this morning and I also thank my colleagues for contributing to the debate on this Estimate. We will not agree on every facet but there were many good contributions to which I and my colleagues responded. I hope the general thrust of what we all try to do will not only benefit the environment but will initiate new schemes which will help the community to develop, create employment and find solutions. It is a difficult task because of the range of subjects and the interests of Deputies who are members of local authorities. It is a coal face activity and attracts questions which can cover anything from roads, environment and sanitary services to group water schemes and the schemes which support these general developments.
I reject the suggestion that there has been a diminution of the management of our environment since I became Minister. An effort was made on occasion to suggest only one person has an interest in the environment and that nothing will ever happen in the Department. The former Minister of State is involved in a different range of activities and I compliment her for her interest in the work she was doing. I was very happy to support her in the Department.
The Environmental Protection Agency as outlined by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, will be established within weeks. There were provisions in that Bill which required us to take certain action in selecting directors. They, in turn, had to take up new responsibilities. There was the question of the advisory board and the prescribed organistions, 34 of whom had to be solicited to give names. The requirements of that Bill were exacting in terms of meeting a timescale, but we are ready to move and we look forward to the range of activities which will fall within the remit of the Environmental Protection Agency.
We have every confidence in the directors and the advisory board which will be appointed shortly to provide the necessary leadership, particularly in the major projects and the licensing systems, and in bringing together all the other more spread out requirements under previous legislation on water and air pollution. We are on the right road and there has been no going back from what has to be done. We have applied our attention to everything required in the Act.
In relation to having a single Department with responsibility for the environment only, there is no simple organisational answer because it was very clear from Deputy Doyle's contribution that she wanted me to cross boundaries. and to be involved in other Departments. Regardless of whether there is a single Department of the Environment, or a Department of the Environment which also has physical planning, housing, roads and so on, it has to cross the boundaries.
From my own experience of what is happening in Europe, a number of Governments decided to have a single Department of the Environment. The Netherlands, like Ireland, have decided to include physical planning, roads and housing in the Department of the Environment, because they are inextricably linked with what happens to the environment. Will the Minister for the Environment battle for increases for sanitary services, although he has no responsibility for this area. When he has only a small budget and a small staff, and may often not be a senior Minister in the Government? I am not saying which way is perfect, but as long as one has to cross boundaries and become involved in other areas, the important thing is to have a senior ministry, to have the resources, personal and back-up to ensure that one is able to penetrate and break down the cultural barriers in certain areas to getting involved in the environment.
The employment was referred to and there is the broader understanding of the changes which must be implemented which do not cut across employment or economic development. The changes must support it, with a better understanding of how we organise ourselves for the purpose of the national plan, the work of the URGE is doing in research and in making sure that our plans have that environmental orientation, the right balance, take account of finite resources, help to ensure that we have a beautiful country and that we develop it sensitively. In a sense it is understandable that Deputy Sargent is arguing against roads while, at the same time, arguing for roads in Balbriggan.
I am simply discriminating, as we all are.
It is understandable. If he is able to build the bypass at Balbriggan for £9 million, not only can he give up his job as a TD but I will give him a job in consultancy. I will get rid of all the engineers in my Department and local authorities because they tell me it would cost four times——
I am talking about local funding.
That is now clarified. We will get the £36 million anyway. I do not want to condemn Deputy Sargent or Deputy Boylan but they know that the primary routes are the arteries leading to sea ports and airports, they are the export routes that all the produce in Monaghan and Cavan has to travel on. Many of the stretches of our roads today which carry over 90 per cent of traffic are at an unacceptably low standard. We are building them up but we will not have unnecessary expenditure in any of these areas.
We will develop as DTI suggested in the public transport area, in pedestrianisation and cycle routes, in catering for the mobile, impaired and the wider community. We will develop the consultative process that helps us to do that, and no money will be spent in a non-essential area. There is a broad consensus in the Moriarty task force, the Culliton report and the various other task forces that have been examining this for years.
In relation to Deputy Doyle's position, looking across Europe, the safest way is the way we are going, to make sure that we have the power, strength and resources to penetrate the other areas. I am chairing a ministerial committee to ensure that we can bring together a coherent environment policy affecting all Departments. I accept the point that there has to be an audit, and a constant effort to ensure that we get the benefits of a greater understanding in the policies we pursue as a result.
The Deputy made strong reference to the CO2 strategy, which he announced recently. I accept that in terms of the ozone layer and climate change, the convention we will adopt this year in tandem with our Community partners is not the end of the story. The ESB must continue research into renewable and alternative energy sources, lessening our dependence on fossil fuels. New technology being developed by Board na Móna, investment in afforestation, as a sink-trap for the CO2 must be pursued, as well as education and awareness generally. The Government has a responsibility to make sure that again in this area, right across the various Departments, there is a better understanding of what we must achieve in terms of safeguarding and protecting the environment.
The Deputy referred to the inadequacy of research. As a former Minister for Science and Technology, I have considerable experience in working with the universities and industry generally in trying to get additional resources for research. It is very important to base our judgments on sound scientific information, that we not only have the best resources in research in universities and other institutions, but access to information on foot of other research in different parts of the world. This was the purpose of the Rio Conference.
We have research for greater energy efficiency. I accept that there is considerable waste in energy management, that there is room for more efficiency, and hopefully for more growth in line with what has been agreed with the cohesion countries. A big effort will be made in terms of that efficiency to ensure that it allows for economic growth and other developments in society are kept at an absolute minimum. We have ALTENER for renewable energies, THERMIE for new technologies, and JOULE, there are other possibilities for investment in this area also.
There are a number of activities right across the whole industry and third level spectrum of research in this area, bringing it together, getting more resources for it and working with people like those involved in URGE to ensure that the best use is made of these resources. Many of them want to work alone and to have atonomy, which is not acceptable. We have to decide on the essential nature of the research we wish to do and apply the best resources we can.
I accept we can improve the environmental impact assessments. We have already carried out investigations into that and the message is that a number of them have been excellent, but that others have not been as good as we would wish. We have a consultancy report aimed at ensuring that we have a better system for the future.
There is no argument in this House about nuclear energy. The Government's clear position was restated a couple of months ago in Lucerne at the conference on eastern and central European countries and how they deal with their environmental problems. We are not just talking about problems in Sellafield, and the prospect of THORP, close though they are, but also other very old nuclear processing and energy units that are far from safe. We do not know the depth of this problem, so the involvement of an inspection force, not only for the EC but for the wider Europe, is essential. My colleague, the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications will continue to make that clear at European and other fora.
There is no question of any lack of information on ENFO. In fact, it has been amplified through the library system, as my colleague said. It is one of the areas in my Department on which we get nothing but positive comments from schools, etc. We are delighted with the use that has been made of it and other initiatives will be taken to make sure ENFO does not concentrate exclusively on Dublin or eastern Europe and that it gives information about every facet of land, soil and air, in short, anything we can give to communities to support a better understanding of the environment. That is the window of opportunity. This educational process has been immensely successful, and anybody who has been involved in any part of its development should be proud of it. We do not stand still, however, we keep working to improve it.
Deputy Keogh sought local government reform. I said I would be the most reforming Minister for the Environment of all time.
Very modest.
I have started the process. I had every statutory instrument at my disposal——
He who exalted himself shall be humbled.
I only said it.
Wait until we say it.
I am now about to prove it. Every statutory instrument hitherto requiring the sanction of the Minister for the Environment was delegated to local authorities where possible. Since the Road Traffic Act everything relating to speed, car parking etc., is dealt with at local level.
Minister, we are in breach of the Order of the House by almost 25 minutes.
Mr. Smith
A few other points were made. We will try to address them either in the House in consultation or by letter. I do not want to give a commitment to write letters about everything raised but if Members who raised a point feel they would like to discuss it with us again, we would be happy to do so.
I thank the Minister, the Minister's of State and officials for the courtesy they have shown and I would like to thank Members of the committee for the flexible way in which they agreed to conduct the business. As today concludes the select committee's considerations of the Estimates for the Departments of Finance and of the Environment, in accordance with our order of reference, I will report accordingly to the Dáil next week.
The Select Committee adjourned at 2.20 p.m.