Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs debate -
Thursday, 9 Dec 1993

Page 2

Vote 7 — Superannuation and Retired Allowances (Supplementary Estimate).

Vote 13 — Office of the Attorney General (Supplementary Estimate).

Vote 15 — Valuation and Ordnance Survey (Supplementary Estimate).

Vote 11 — State Laboratory (Excess Vote).

Vote 45 — Increases in Remuneration and Pensions (Additional Estimate).

Chairman

This morning we will discuss Supplementary Estimates, an excess Vote and an additional Estimate within the Finance group. The Supplementary Estimates are in respect of Vote 7, Superannuation and Retirement Allowances, Vote 13, Office of the Attorney General and Vote 15, Valuation and Ordnance Survey. The excess Vote in respect of the State Laboratory and it is in relation to 1991. The additional Estimate is in respect of Vote 45, Increases in Remuneration and Pensions. A proposed timetable for the discussion of the Estimates has been circulated to members with their papers this morning. I now ask the Minister to make his opening statement.

It is also proposed that in the afternoon we take the Estimate for the Department of the Environment. A timetable has been drawn up but as we are approximately 15 minutes late starting we will adjust the times.

Minister for Finance (Mr. B. Ahern)

I am pleased to be taking part in this meeting of the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs and I hope for a constructive and fruitful discussion of the items before the Committee. There are five items on the agenda, each of interest in its own way. All of the items are concerned with the group of Votes commonly referred to as the Finance group of votes. I propose to take first the Supplementary Estimates, of which there are three. There is also an excess on a Vote dating from 1991; and finally a new Vote that has become necessary in the present year.

On the Supplementary Estimates I will start with the Supplementary Estimate for Vote 7, Superannuation and Retired Allownaces. The original Estimate for the Vote was £80,321,000. The increase now sought in the Supplementary Estimate is for £5.3 million. Due to the basic nature of the Superannuation Vote accurate estimation of expenditure is very difficult every year. A number of factors which are normally unknown relating to life expectancy and the many voluntary options available to serving staff contribute to significant variations in expenditure from year to year. It is now clear from the emerging pattern of payments over the months of January to October of this year that the Estimate for the year is not sufficient.

The Vote covers the payment of pensions, lump sums and death gratuities for established and unestablished civil servents. The terms and conditions of these payments are set out in the Superannuation Acts of 1834 and 1963 and the Superannuation and Pensions Act of 1976, in various Statutory Instruments and in circulars issued from time to time by the Department of Finance. The Vote also covers the payment of pensions to widows and widowers of civil servants, to the Judiciary and to court officers.

The second Supplementary Estimate arising is for Vote 13, the Office of the Attorney General. The additional amount sought here is £1,117,000 and two major components of this supplementary are counsels' fees and general court fees. The need for additional funds arises from the volume of work passing through the courts and the large volume of litigation being handled by the Attorney General's office. It is impossible to estimate accurately in advance the number or the nature of the cases that will be brought against the State during the year or what funds will be needed for the purpose. With the exception of the fees due to counsel who appeared for the Attorney General in the Cabinet confidentiality and parliamentary privilege proceedings, all the remaining fees arising from the Beef Tribunal are discharged by the Department of Agriculture. The bulk of the costs in connection with the Beef Tribunal do not arise on this Vote for the Attorney General that is before us today.

The third and final Supplementary Estimate arising is under Vote 15 for the Valuation and Ordnance Survey Office. A total Supplementary Estimate of £1,000 is necessary here, as a result of the very heavy workload undertaken by the office in supplying farmers with the maps necessary for their application for payments from the Department of Agriculture and Food under the European Union CAP reform schemes. The gross expenditure has been greater than that provided for in the original Estimate.

The increase in gross expenditure is chiefly made up of overtime related to the production of the maps, the cost of extra postage for their distribution and payments to Teagasc in respect of their work in arranging for the supply of maps to farmers who are making further applications under the CAP produce reform schemes. This increase in overall gross expenditure is spread across a number of sub-heads in the Vote.

The increases total £501,000 in gross expenditure. However this increased gross expenditure will be offset by an increase in the appropriations-in-aid of £500,000 resulting from the sale of maps to farmers. The effective purpose of the Supplementary Estimate is to use the increased appropriations-in-aid to pay for the increased gross expenditure, so the supplementary will therefore have a neutral effect on the Exchequer during the current year, 1993. That concludes the first three items, all concerning Supplementary Estimates.

The fourth item involves an excess on Vote 11, the State Laboratory. The excess arise in 1991 in an amount of £5,817 and requires to be regularised through a token Vote of £10. What is involved here is largely a procedural matter. The Public Accounts Committee on the Dáil has already indicated that there is no objection to the token Vote.

The excess of £5,817 on the Vote arose from a miscalculation of employer's PRSI for certain employees of the laboratory and as a result it was thought that there were savings in pay. These were taken into account by the State Laboratory to reduce its draw on the Vote for remuneration to meet the costs of pay increases not already provided for in the Vote. The amount drawn down from the Vote for remuneration was £41,000 instead of the actual required sum of £46,817. No additional expenditure was incurred as a result of the oversight, which came to light too late to remedy the matter. As a result the Vote for remuneration did not have to carry the full cost of the pay increases and the social welfare status of the employees concerned was not affected. To regularise this situation an excess Vote of £10 is required; this is the formal requirement. In 1991 additional appropriations-in-aid were available in the Vote to set against the excess of £5,817.

Our fifth and final item on the agenda is provision for an Estimate for a new additional Vote in the present year. Vote 45 increases remuneration and pensions. The Estimate proposed is £42 million and the reason for the Estimate is as follows. On 17 January 1992 the Government announced a package of measures on public service pay which involves the placing of ceilings on the general round increases due under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress in 1992 and 1993. At that time a commitment was given to lift the ceilings and to restore not later than January next the losses arising from their application. This commitment was reiterated in an agreement reached with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in early June of this year.

Mr. Yates

Were Members of the Committee circulated details of this Supplementary Estimate?

Chairman

Yes.

Mr. B. Ahern

I am happy to state that the ceilings have been lifted and the question of payment of the outstanding arrears is to be addressed now. In the light of the emerging budgetary outturn for 1993 the Government decided to bring forward for payment in 1993 part of the pay arrears arising from the capping that I referred to under the January 1992 agreement. The additional Estimate for £42 million now sought for this purpose is to enable such payments to be made as far as possible in the current year.

The payment of these arrears will benefit all categories of public servants covered under the original agreement. The total arrears due in respect of 1992-93 are of course far higher than this and are estimated at £116 million. Of this figure £33 million is appointed for the health sector, leaving a balance of £83 million to cover the remainder of the public service. The provision of £42 million now to be paid represents approximately half of the arrears of the £83 million. This will permit the payment of the 1992 losses in 1993 or, if more convenient and cost effective administratively, payment of 50 per cent of the total losses in 1992 and 1993. Provision for payment of the remainder of the arrears is being made in Estimates for 1994 and any necessary adjustments will be made in the revised Estimates volume arising from the part payment of arrears in the current year.

I should also mention that provision of £33 million is being made in a separate Supplementary Estimate for the Health Vote to minimise delays in payment of the arrears to workers in the health agencies. This is to ensure as far as possible that the Government commitment to pay all arrears by January 1994 is honoured. We gave that undertaking almost two years ago.

I hope that the above explanations, together with the briefing supplied by my Department, have clarified the five matters on the agenda for the committee. I look forward to hearing the views of the committee and to their support for the measures involved. If any further points are raised I will do my best to respond to them in my concluding statement.

Chairman

Before I call Deputy Yates, I would like to inform you that the Committee of Selection has informed me that Deputy Michael McDowell has replaced Deputy Helen Keogh as a member of the committee. I welcome Deputy McDowell.

Mr. Yates

We will not be opposing the Supplementary Estimates. Some of them amount to fairly modest housekeeping involving small amounts of money. However, others involve substantial figures. I will take the opportunity to make what I think are relevant points in relation to the different Votes and subheads within the Finance group.

I am concerned at the raft of Supplementary Estimates that were presented to the House this week and last week. It was a practice that we thought had finished in the eighties. Last year the total for Supplementary Estimates amounted to £294 million and perhaps the Minister could outline what the total figure will be for the overshoot of expenditure this year as opposed to that set out in the Book of Estimates for 1993.

In relation to some of the detail I would like to examine Vote 7 which deals with the provision of an additional sum of £5.8 million for superannuation and retired allowances. I understand, having spoken to Department of Finance officials, how this miscalculation occurred and how difficult it is to make a very accurate prediction because people die and a certain treatment of lumps sums is required if people opt for retirement once they are over the age of 60. However, the important general point here is that State pensions are paid out of current expenditure unlike the private sector which makes provision for the payment of pensions. The normal procedure there is that contributions are set aside on the annual balance sheet. That money is left to mature and increase in such a way that when people come to retire the money is there for them. In the public sector no provision is made on an annual basis. Deductions are made but no fund is set aside.

As the Minister will know, all across Europe the question of pension provision is becoming a very live issue. For example, the British budget last week increased the pension age for women from the year 2020 from 60 to 65 years. On the continent of Europe it is a key political issue because of demographic changes that will result soon in something like two pensioners for every one person at work. I do not think it is sensible for us to continue to pay all pensions and lump sums out of current revenue because this means that taxpayers in the future are going to face an inordinately large bill which will be a huge burden on them. Provision should be made to set aside £15 to £20 million from the Central Fund to invest and to facilitate a prudent pension provision. I would cite to the Minister an example from when Mr. MacSharry was Minister for Finance. Some £120 million was spent on an early retirement and voluntary redundancy scheme in the public sector and that was funded out of the profits of the Central Bank. I propose that in future, starting in 1994 or beyond, the profits of the Central Bank should in part be set aside for a pension fund for established and non-established civil servants. The figure mentioned here is almost £100 million and is going to increase. It is prudent to make that change, given that life expectancy is going to increase and pensioners are going to live longer. There will be more pensioners and it is sensible to provide for it now rather than increase taxation in future generations. I turn now to the Vote relating to the Attorney General. I am not satisfied with the Attorney General's office as there is a total lack of transparency and accountability in that office. In other parliamentary systems the Attorney General is accountable to parliament and he or she is required to appear before the House to answer questions. There have been Attorney Generals who were Members of the Oireachtas but the norm is that they are not. Some provision will have to be made either, through a committee of the House or through the Dáil, to require the Attorney General to answer questions, for example, quarterly. There are serious issues arising from the drafting of legislation, the Chief State Solicitor's office and actions which the Attorney General took in controversial cases such as the X case which require effective accountability. It would be a change and I ask the Minister to consider it. My colleague, Deputy Gay Mitchell, has pursued this matter through legislation and I would like to know if it requires a constitutional amendment or other change.

Most of the extra expenditure in this area is for counsels' fees which increased from £1.06 million to £1.7 million, an additional sum of £650,000. There is public outrage at the level of fees being charged by counsel. The final bill from the Beef Tribunal to which the Minister alluded in his comments has not yet materialised but the figures vary from £4 million to £40 million. I ask the Minister to confirm that the cost of the Beef Tribunal, the most expensive inquiry in the history of the State, is now likely to be in the region of £20 million.

I do not want to interfere with the substance of that issue but there is disquiet about counsel obtaining fees between £4,000 and £8,000 a day. This is inexplicable to ordinary people. There may be some justification arising from backup costs, research costs and additional staff but there is no transparent tendering or competitive process. We are told that while there are some very wealthy barristers, there are others at the Bar who are starving because they have no work. The simplest way to overcome the problem is to have some element of competition. I do not wish to personalise this; it is a general point.

(Interruptions.)

Chairman

Deputy Yates, without interruption.

Mr. Yates

The point I am making is that there is no element of competition. I ask the Minister specifically what level of negotiation done on the pay side is applicable to these fees. Is the Minister satisfied that he is getting value for money? The general perception is otherwise. I ask him to give us a figure for the Beef Tribunal. I turn now to the Supplementary Estimate dealing with the Ordnance Survey. The Ordnance Survey office does a very fine job. It has a staff of some 300 people and I understand it is now using new technology which means they no longer go through the antiquated procedure with field officers. The Ordnance Survey has done a good job in relation to tourist maps. They are updating the 70 one inch maps right across the country and have done ten already. However, I have to express some concern because administration in relation to the maps that are necessary for the cereal CAP scheme for area aid is unacceptable. There is a delay of over six months in obtaining these maps.

I ask the Minister to examine this again to ensure that copies of maps that were made available last year could be presented by the farmers for their annual scheme. In most cases farmers have to get a new map. The problem is that the deadline for applying for the maps is this month and they have to be in the Department by 15 March. In 1993 there were people who applied for maps in February and did not get them until November. I understand that there is a great demand for these maps, the Minister mentioned the figures, but it is only a printing copy process. The maps do not have to be redrawn.

Finally I wish to mention the figure of £42 million, the arrears brought forward into 1993 under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. This is game playing. This is a ploy which reduces the rate of increase on expenditure year after year. When the Minister presents the Book of Estimates for 1994, it will appear that the level of increase in expenditure is reduced because he paid £42 million of arrears this year. In the debate on the levy the Minister whinged about the £75 million he had to give to Aer Lingus, the shortfall of £65 million for VAT and today he says that due to the improved Exchequer position he can now pay £42 million, yet he was not able to give any concession to taxpayers in relation to the 1 per cent levy. We should have clear bookkeeping. If the agreement in theProgramme for Economic and Social Progress was to pay it on 1 January, we should have a clear process and not play with the figures to try to minimise the rate of increase.

Mr. B. Ahern

On a point of order, the commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress was that the final date was January 1994.

Mr. Yates

I appreciate that. The Minister left himself some room to manoeuvre if he wanted to put them into these year's figures. The amnesty is put forward to 14 January next year and the arrears are brought forward to this year and if one also takes account of the dates on which EC moneys are paid and so on, one finds there is much jiggery-pokery going on here.

I ask the Minister, if he has this extra leeway to pay the £42 million which we are not opposing, where does that leave the Exchequer borrowing requirement for this year? The target was £790 million. My understanding was that this was going to be somewhat overshot. Now that the Minister has this extra flexibility perhaps he could clarify what the revised Exchequer borowing requirement will be for 1993.

We will not be opposing these Estimates but there are some relevant points in relation to State fees to solicitors, the accountability of the Attorney General's Office, prudent pension provision for the future for civil servants and the delay in the provision of maps. I ask the Minister to deal with those questions when he is replying.

Mr. M. McDowell

At this stage of the financial year, I am by no means convinced that what is happening now is necessary or sensible. This concept of annual accounts on a receipts basis, which is the basis on which Government finances are run at the moment, seems to be fraying at the edges and becoming somewhat discredited. The movement of moneys from next year back to this year in terms of expenditure is, as Deputy Yates says, a bit strange. It suggests that in order to keep pace with public accounting there has to be an unnecessary juggling of figures at the end of a year. VAT is being brought back from January to December to achieve the same result on the other side of the balance sheet and is again an example of funny money accounting which should be abandoned.

Recently there has been some suggestion that Britain is going to adopt an accruals basis for public expenditure accounting and public finance accounting. The time has come for us to examine the structure and form of public accounts to see whether or not they could be made less artificial and a good deal more transparent and meaningful. It is foolish for us to spend time wondering whether the Minister can by bringing sums which he intended to pay in January back into December achieve some very different Exchequer borrowing requirement. Those figures are discredited when changes are made at the edge in order to achieve particular targets. It does not really matter to me whether the money is paid in December or January because it does not affect the public at large. The trend in public accounting is important and that is why both this exercise and the exercise in the Finance Bill in relation to bringing VAT back into this year where phoney exercises in complying with outdated financial techniques.

The Vote for the Office of the Attorney General is extraordinary in two ways. First, there is extra expenditure on counsel's fees. I anticipated that in relation to the Beef Tribunal. Second, there is an increase in general law expenses. Two things occur to me in relation to that and I agree with Deputy Yates that there must be more transparency in relation to how counsel's fees are fixed in this matter. We never had an adequate explanation as to how counsel for the State's fees were fixed in relation to the Beef Tribunal. It has never been suggested that there was a hard bargaining process or that it was offered to one barrister who refused to do it at the price offered and then given to another barrister who would.

Some of my colleagues have made the case that the fees charged were entirely justifiable, bearing in mind that some of the counsel were leading barristers. That is true, but other barristers engaged on behalf of the State were not leading barristers. I do not believe that a hard bargain was struck on this occasion and we have not heard precisely who offered what rate of remuneration to whom and who will take responsibility for fixing the fees on that occasion. I know the old adage that dog does not eat dog and I accept it to some extent but on this occasion, for a tribunal of that kind where the length was indeterminate at the beginning, some structure should have been put in place to ensure that the State's expenditure on counsel was kept under proper control and did not exceed what the public considered was reasonable.

In this regard the same applies to inspectors appointed by the Department of Industry and Commerce. I note that the response recently to public and governmental concern at the time about the excessinve cost of company inquiries has led to civil servants being appointed as inspectors. That was a predictable solution to the same problem where fees were struck by way of a bargain on a non-competitive basis between the Attorney General and counsel. The old theory was that if a brief was offered to a barrister the fee being offered with it should have been put on the front of it and it was up to the barrister to accept or reject it. There is no downward pressure of that kind on counsel's fees if they are offered the brief first and fees are discussed afterwards. That is not the right way to go about our business.

I am not satisfied that the taxpayer is getting value for money from the office of the Ordnance Survey. It is time to consider privatising that institution or at least to consider having an all-Ireland Ordnance Survey and possibly making it into a semi-State agency. It is not being operated in a commercial manner. The charges they make for individual maps are frightening on occasion. I do not know whether we have any adequate information as to whether the office is run on a commercial basis, but it could be run commercially if it was taken out of the area of State control.

I want to make the point that we are here considering a £10 variation in the affairs of one Department and that is an example of how ridiculous public finance has become. If any Member of the Dáil wanted to save the taxpayer the cost of all the printing involved in that £10 expenditure they should have taken the money out of their top pocket and handed it in to the Minister to save us all the bother. To some extent that shows the artificiality of public accounting and the time has now come for us to take a slightly less artificial, more transparent approach. There is a need for transparency when dealing with the Vote for the Attorney General's office. I concede that and the public would want to see it. I take it that general law expenses also includes expenditure by way of damages and so on.

Perhaps the Minister could tell me whether in the last year more than £0.5 million — it may be well above that — has been expended in damages in pardon cases. Does that come under the Attorney General's Vote or where do sums for compensation to victims of miscarriage of justice come from? My information is that the State has conceded a liability in two specific cases and paid well over £1 million to two identified people. I would like to know which Vote that is paid out of and whether it is reflected in any of the figures before us.

Mr. B. Ahern

In regard to the last question Deputy McDowell asked, that expenditure comes out of the Vote of the Department of Justice. I will take into account the points made by both Deputy Yates and Deputy McDowell. In regard to questions raised on the Supplementary Estimates, Deputy Yates know that every year as part of the process there are always Supplementary Estimates for one reason or another. Some of them are technical, like the £10 which Deputy McDowell mentioned. It is not that it is a Vote for £10 — it is just to make provision.

We have operated this account of receipts and expenditure since the foundation of the State. All my training was in accruals. I never had the luxury of working in an organisation that could work on the basis of receipts and expenditure and I am sure not too many people in the House did either. Our system is effectively the same as the system in the UK which was developed in the 1920s. It has some difficulties and some advantages but that is the way it is.

It is the same with the operation of the pension system. Deputy Yates is right. Pensions are a growing issue because of the labour force. There is still labour force growth in Ireland. In many countries there is a decline in population and as this progresses the age of the population will become the issue. It has been fairly well predicted in OECD reports that while the European Union tomorrow will be putting an emphasis on the growing unemployment situation, if Deputies look at the demographs, in 20 years time the issue on the agenda will definitely be the elderly. As sure as we are here discussing the Estimates, those who will come after us in 20 years will be discussing that issue. I do not have an argument with Deputy Yates on this.

Mr. Yates

Is the Minister saying that he will not still be here in 20 years' time?

Mr. B. Ahern

I better not leave it on the record but I hope I will.

Mr. Finucane

You have a sense of vision.

Mr. B. Ahern

It is an important issue. Under the present system it is provided for on a year to year basis. In relation to the State companies and other aspects of the State this issue is on my mind. I have had some detailed discussions already on this matter because there are problems down the line and I have been dealing with some of these.

The overall supplementary total for this year is about £50 million less than it was in 1992. There are still many Supplementary Estimates. Naturally the Minister for Finance would like to see them ——

Mr. Yates

£50 million less?

Mr. B. Ahern

That is about £240 million for this year. It is due to all kinds of reasons and issues that arise during the year. Much of it can be predicted from very early on.

Mr. Yates

Did the Minister include the £42 million?

Mr. B. Ahern

Yes. The Ordnance Survey Office gives a very good service. Deputy Yates' question as to whether the ordnance survey work could be done better if it was privatised is an issue for another day. In fairness, employees of the Ordnance Survey Office do an excellent job under the remit they have. I appreciate the point Deputy McDowell made.

Deputy Yates asked about using old maps. To the best of my knowledge — I will ask some of my collegues to get that information for the Deputy — rather than submitting new maps every time, it was announced that under the guidelines one can now submit the same map if there was no change. If it is already on a person's record, that person does not have to submit a map. The Minister for Agriculture and Food made a statement on this matter approximately two weeks ago and I will get the exact details of the changes made. As can be seen from this, it is done on a fairly neutral basis. The additional costs involved have effectively been covered by the extra money taken in.

The issue of counsel fees was well discussed during 1992-93. I recently proposed guidelines to the Attorney General on how both the Departemnt and the Government would like the business undertaken. The amount of expenditure to date reflects a high throughput of cases in the courts. A large number of litigation cases are being handled by the Office of the Attorney General, so it is not only a question of more and higher fees. It is difficult to estimate the cost of this in advance. The number, level and duration of major cases is always a source of difficulty and, I suppose, of contention between the Department and the Office of the Attorney General.

I shall give the committee an idea of what has happened. The number of cases taken by the State in recent years has increased from 1,250 in 1986 to 2,313 last year and it will be higher again this year. The figures for the beef tribunal are not yet known because the question of cost has to be resolved by the tribunal. Therefore, it is not possible to tell Deputy Yates what the total costs of the inquiry will be. While the public sittings may have ended, the tribunal is still engaged in the preparation of a report. It is expected that the report will be substantial and the figures will appear in due course. That apart, we have set down for the Attorney General what we believe are reasonable guidelines. It is not a question of trying to dictate to the Attorney General but to try to get a basis of how these matters are handled and to ensure that the Attorney General shops around, as I demand of every other area.

I know there are difficulties and that there are people expert in certain fields. These matters must be taken into account. I cannot dictate on that and I do not think it would always be in the interest of the State to do so. I am not saying anyone is suggesting that. In so far as the normal case is concerned, if such exists, the Attorney General will follow guidelines which will be transparent and, as Deputy McDowell said, regulated to the best of our ability.

Deputy McDowell summed up the pay aspects well. I would love to know what the Exchequer borrowing requirement will be on Friday, 31 December, when the Department traditionally works until midnight — it is a rather unpleasant way of spending New Year's Eve. As Minister for Finance, I can assure Members that my officials in the Department have been doing this for many years. This year, New Year's Eve is on a Friday so it is a normal working day. I will not know the EBR figure until the various revenue offices and Departments close and the procedure that goes on between close of business and midnight has ended. Some years ago, approximately £70 million came in on the final day, which threw the accuracy out substantially. We are operating in the order of £810 million for the EBR, but to call it £50 million one side or another would frankly be imposible because a huge amount of VAT remittances and other State payments are made at the end of the year. There is a similar flurry with all the financial sections in the Departments on the last day of the year. It will happen this year as well because that day falls on a normal working day.

We were working on a EBR benchmark of £810 million or higher. I would like it to be around the £810 million but it could be higher and there is no way I could call within that. If it falls around the £790 million, plus the £75 million the markets have already allowed us in their consideration, they would be expecting approximately £850 million. The VAT is a cash flow issue; that is the way it operates. I agree with Deputy McDowell in that if our accountancy system was different we would not be doing it this way. What has effectively happened is that industry and business have got the benefit of cash flow throughout the year. We try to claw part of it back late in the year and pay that back at the start of the year. Following the Balocchi case in Italy it was ruled that one could only do that in certain respects. What we thought would be a large cash flow will now be approximately only £80 million. From our point of view, it would be better if there was a way of getting out of that, but at least it is now down to reasonable proportions.

In relation to the difficulty estimating the pay position, I made commitments on behalf of the Government in the PESP agreement on 17 January 1992 to pay £5 and £6.50 for 1992 and 1993 respectively. It should have been 3 per cent and 3.75 per cent. We were to remove the cap on 1 December 1992 and remove the second part of it on 1 December 1993. We have done that in both cases. We were able to pay some of the arrears last year but were not able to pay either the 1992 or 1993 arrears. Effectively, we will be paying approximately £75 million of the arrears which would mainly cover the 1992 area, except for the health sector where we would also be paying for the 1993 period. The reason for that, as Deputies will recall, is that there was considerable annoyance in the health sector at the end of last year at the delay in nurses' payments. We are paying that amount to avoid that problem. We are not referring to a 1994 payment — I want to make that absolutely clear — but about paying arrears that should have been paid in 1992 and the remainder, which should have been paid in 1993. We are now clearing the 1992 element in total and we are paying the 1993 total for the health sector now. The remainder will have to fall into 1994.

Because we are endeavouring to make the calculations for this for all Departments, all the amounts are not included in the Book of Estimates which will show the figure to be slightly higher than the provisional figure. I know Deputy Yates wants this for his briefing afterwards so on the non public capital programme for 1992, he could take about .3 per cent off the figure that would be shown in this volume to get the true figure for the 1994 increase over the 1993 figure.

Mr. Yates

Are Departmental arrears included?

Mr. B. Ahern

Some of the arrears are in. Some Departments from their computer systems were able to produce figures very quickly. Other Departments were not in a position to do so because they had not calculated the arrears or had not done so quickly enough from the time I decided to pay part of the arrears last week. About .3 per cent would be the difference between what is in the book and what should be taken off. I think that covers most of the questions raised.

Chairman

The three Deputies who want to put questions are Deputies Boylan, Martin and Finucane and we will take them in that order.

Mr. Boylan

In relation to the Ordnance Survey Office, I am opposed to that Supplementary Estimate because the deficit should not have arisen in the first place. Over the last number of weeks there has been an organised rip off of farmers who are being sold Ordnance Survey maps that are not suitable for their purposes. These maps are being sold at the so-called bargain price of £25 and at £12.50 for extra maps. They revert to £45 per map after this great sale is over. In fact the proper map for farmers to obtain is a land registry map which is a map of their holding and costs £9 per folio. There can be no dispute over boundaries because it is a map of their actual holding. Farmers were not advised about this but were steered towards the Ordnance Survey Office, through no fault of the staff there or of the surveyors who do their job. The proper maps for farmers are in the Land Registry office. Farmers were not advised about this and now have purchased survey maps which show half a parish, leaving them to identify their farm on that map and then to trace it out. This causes major disputes about ownership of fields. The Ordnance Survey map does not take account of physical changes that have taken place in farms over the last 20 years as a result of land reclamation. A farmer may now have a big field which is included on the map as a number of smaller fields but is difficult to identify, leading to fears that all ownership is not marked on the map.

Landowners too are making this mistake, it is not farmers alone who are in difficulties since normally they do not read maps.

Mr. B. Ahern

I would be surprised at any farmer who did not know what fields he owned.

Mr. Boylan

The Minister may not be aware that an Ordnance Survey sheet may not show the whole of a farm if that farm lies on the corner of the sheet; it may be spread across more than one sheet. Why were farmers not directed to the Land Registry office where they could buy maps at a fraction of the cost of Ordnance Survey maps? I am told that an estimated £15 million was taken from farmers in this rip off. It could have been £4 million to the Land Registry. I see the reason now and that is why I am opposed to it. I quote:

Teagasc is handling the ordering process and the provision for the increase in the subhead is to cover payments to Teagasc for this service.

It is a commission to Teagasc because we all know that Teagasc has major financial problems. They are getting a slice of this rip off. Why not go decently to farmers and ask for a token for Teagasc but let them go to the Land Registry and get proper maps? Survey maps when people try to mark in their holdings on them are going to create more problems than they will solve. Thankfully I was aware that Land Registry maps were the correct maps and I was able to advise my constituents that there were cheaper and better maps to be got.

Mr. Martin

Would the Minister agree that traditionally there has not been sufficient analysis by Dáil Members or by a committee of this nature of Estimates in general and that vast sums of money are agreed in a matter of hours? Would the Minister envisage the consideration of the 1994 Estimates over a period of time? We do not necessarily have to do it in one go. Perhaps this committee would engage in a deeper analysis of expenditure programmes by the State through the various Departments. There are a number of items that we would like to question more thoroughly but obviously our function today is to pass a number of Supplementary Estimates. In general there is a need for a greater analysis by this committee of Estimates and a need for greater public accountability for the vast sums of money being spent by the State.

In relation to the Vote for the Attorney General's Office I note that annually there would appear to be underprovision for fees for counsel and general law fees as well. I share the views expressed by many Members that the public at large are appalled at what they perceive to be exorbitant sums of money paid to barristers and to the legal profession generally. There is a need for the legal profession, if not also for the State, to deal with that perception of an exploitative legal profession held by the public at large.

The public takes the generalised view that it is being ripped off and that the legal profession has made little attempt in recent years to counter that perception. Judging from the Minister's answer we will not have any real tightening up on legal fees in future years. People by and large are unhappy with spiralling increases year after year in legal fees.

Deputy Finucane

Deputy Boylan elaborated on the maps issue and made some valid points on an issue that has caused much concern. I think that the EU CAP reform proposals have been known for some time and it is a sad commentary on Irish farming that there has been such a demand for these maps.

The Minister already addressed the question of the £350,000 for overtime which appears to be a very inordinate sum. I accept that it was work that had to be done within a short period of time. However, it will also be recurring work in the forthcoming years and I would prefer, given the high number of people unemployed, to absorb extra people into that Department. Over succeeding years with natural wastage people could be moved into other Departments and in this way rather than pay an excessive amount for overtime people could be employed.

A large amount of overtime is factored into the Supplementary Estimate for the Ordnance Survey office. The tax amnesty generated a large volume of work this year together with the extension of the amnesty in recent times. What happens within the Revenue Commissioners at such times? Is overtime required or is it absorbed into the normal working week? I wonder about that because it would appear from the volume of paper work that it is a highly efficient Department doing the minimum of overtime, on which it should be complimented. It would appear that the tax amnesty is an extra dimension to the work of the Revenue this year over past years, particularly with regard to its extension in recent times.

The Minister says he cannot envisage the time scale involved in finalising the Beef Tribunal. I think everyone would love to see it finalised at this stage. Over a period of time Parliamentary Questions have obtained almost a blow by blow account of current cost estimates. Members of the public are concerned about the escalating costs and the legal profession is not seen in a very good light by the public as a result of the running saga of the Beef Tribunal. Could the Minister give an indication of when that tribunal is likely to be finished? The Minister says he gave the Attorney General some guidelines on acceptable costs but can he give guidelines only? At the end of the day is the legal profession the final determinant of costs based on the personnel involved?

Mr. Ferris

The costs associated with the Beef Tribunal is a very contentious matter. Down the country people are extremely worried and want to see what value the State is getting for taxpayers' money which is the question I want to ask the Minister. While he has not quantified the total costs yet to the Department of Agriculture and Food can he give us an idea of what the tax credits might be as a result of the tribunal? Perhaps the Minister, when looking at what is happening in other areas of his Department, might see some credits coming in.

I support Deputy Boylan on the major controversy that has arisen about maps. Farmers were specifically instructed to have the originals of ordnance survey maps made available. Because the matter was so complicated and so serious we guided people towards Teagasc who were the experts because if an error was made in the preparation of the claim document people might lose payments that were guaranteed under the CAP reform. My problem with the Land Registry, and it is a tribute to it, is that it is probably the most understaffed and over worked office in the country. Staff there are most helpful with regard to transactions and sales. I did not direct anybody to the Land Registry for maps because I understood it was the Ordnance Survey maps that were needed. Perhaps it could be confirmed if the Land Registry maps were finally accepted by the Department of Agriculture and Food and if so then Deputy Boylan's case is absolutely genuine and people were led down a cul-de-sac.

Mr. B. Ahern

As I understand it the Land Registry is not in the business of selling maps and were not geared to meet the demand under CAP and headage payments and the difficulties arose from that. The Land Registry states that based on the estimated number of applications for the area aid scheme they were not in a position to deal with full demand for the necessary maps to meet the deadline of March while simultaneously continuing to deliver on other regular services. That is why they did not get into it.

Regarding map prices, the normal price, apparently, for the large scale maps is £42 per map. Under the CAP reform schemes processed earlier this year maps were provided at £25 per holding regardless of the number of maps involved. I would have thought that would have solved Deputy Boylan's problem. Under the latest scheme the applications for maps submitted by 22 December will qualify for a reduced rate of £25 for the first map and £12.50 each for the second, third and fourth maps. This schedule of prices was drawn up following discussions between the Ordnance Survey Office, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and the IFA. The £12.50 rate will also apply to any additional maps required where a farmer can provide proof that his or her holding extends over additional Ordnance Survey sheets. That should deal with the problem. The £25 and the £12.50 rates include the Teagasc take of £5 and £2.50 respectively.

Mr. Boylan

I did not get that from Teagasc.

Mr. B. Ahern

The new rate includes the £5 and the £2.50 respectively.

Mr. Boylan

I understand that Teagasc are now going to charge £1 per acre to advise a farmer where his farm is on the Ordnance Survey map. That is ridiculous.

Mr. B. Ahern

I would be amazed if farmers needed someone to show them where their land is on the Ordnance Survey map.

Mr. Boylan

It is such a serious issue that one would need professional advice on it. It is a problem. I think the Land Registry issue is a matter for the Minister for Justice. The Land Registry staff are quite capable of dealing with the sale of maps and their maps are acceptable in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry.

Mr. M. McDowell

Will the Minister, in relation to the Beef Tribunal since the matter has arisen, first confirm that what Deputy Ferris is saying is correct and that a tax benefit is accruing from the activities of the Beef Tribunal? In relation to fees, could the Minister tell us who agreed the level of counsel fees for the beef tribunal, with whom and when? They are simple questions.

Mr. B. Ahern

I assume it was the Attorney General.

Mr. M. McDowell

Which Attorney General?

Mr. B. Ahern

The Attorney General acts on his own account. I provide him with money only. That is why, as I said earlier, that I tried to put down ——

Mr. M. McDowell

Am I right in thinking that this was the former Attorney General, that it was decided before ——

Mr. B. Ahern

We are talking about 1992.

Mr. M. McDowell

And it was agreed with the present Attorney General?

Mr. B. Ahern

When was the Beef Tribunal set up? Was it early 1992?

Mr. M. McDowell

It was the previous Attorney General and he agreed the level of fees with the present Attorney General. I want to get that on the record. People may ask about it.

Mr. B. Ahern

I do not know who it was but I assume the original fees were agreed at the time by the Attorney General.

Mr. M. McDowell

Is it not the case that the former Attorney General agreed the level of fees with the present Attorney General?

Chairman

That would appear to be the case.

Mr. B. Ahern

I am advised that it was agreed by the former Attorney General. With regard to Deputy Boylan's question in relation to the maps, the fees were for overtime because the office could not deal with the volume of work.

Mr. M. McDowell

Where is the additional revenue for the Ordnance Survey shown?

Mr. B. Ahern

On the sale of the maps.

Mr. M. McDowell

And where does tha show up in the account?

Mr. B. Ahern

Through the Appropriations-in-Aid. That is why it is only £1,000. It is £501,000 as against £0.5 million coming in through the Appropriations-in-Aid. It has been a very efficient exercise by the office concerned.

Mr. Boylan

Extra staff could have been made available to Land Registry to provide these maps.

Mr. B. Ahern

The office based its view on the anticipated applications under the area scheme and concluded that they would not be able to deal with the demand for the necessary maps by the deadline of March next and also continue with their normal work. That is why it was handed over to the Ordnance Survey Office. I accept that the committee acknowledges that the staff of the Ordnance Survey Office have done a particularly good job.

Deputy Martin asked about the position of the Supplementary Estimates. Over the years the Supplementary Estimates have been dealt with in three different ways. Some years ago, from budget time up until the summer adjournment, the Friday sessions of the Dáil and at one stage the Thursday sessions too, used to discuss individual Estimates. A full day used to be given to every block of Votes and now all of them will be looked at in detail by committees. The old procedure where Deputies were able to use the full day in the House on the Vote was a good system but it is a matter for the Whips whether that work is done in committee or not. The objection to the full debate in the House under the old system was that there was no question and answer session like the one we are now engaged in. Instead everybody got half an hour and prior to that one got an hour on an Estimate. Under Dáil reform this is the system that has been adopted for now and it is probably a good system.

On the last point about the Attorney General, the guidelines I have laid down are procedural guidelines. The difficulty for a Minister for Finance is that if one attaches a particular fee to the Attorney General who must fight a case for the State, the person he might want to fight that case may be paid a higher fee by the other side. It does not make sense to set regulations which will be unfair to the Attorney General. The market-place decides these things and if the Minister for Finance tries to become involved in that process——

Mr. M. McDowell

It is an imperfect market, if I may say so.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. B. Ahern

Deputy McDowell supported me on the procedures, so I will not argue. It is easy for somebody on the outside to say that one should set a rate or fee for the job. If a case is vital — and many of these cases are — with huge exposure to the State, it would be foolish for the Minister for Finance to state that one is restricted to a fee of £1,500 or £500. I agree with transparency and that completes the argument.

Mr. Ferris

Does the Minister envisage credit coming to us as a result of the tribunal? We have been talking about the expense of the tribunal.

Mr. B. Ahern

Time will tell.

Mr. Ferris

Is the Minister optimistic?

Mr. B. Ahern

The date of completion is a matter for the chairman of the tribunal

Mr. M. McDowell

The chairman has probably stated that there is a substantial sum of between £10-£20 million in tax arrears coming to the Revenue Commissioners.

Mr. B. Ahern

That is the projected amount, but I cannot substantiate it.

Mr. M. McDowell

Will the Minister go back to the business of producing comprehensive public expenditure programmes which were a great help to Members of the Oireachtas in understanding budgetary matters? Deputy John Bruton instituted those programmes and they analysed the Votes.

Mr. B. Ahern

I will undertake to look at that matter.

Mr. M. McDowell

They died about five years ago. They would shorten discussions on occasions like this if everybody was able to——

Mr. B. Ahern

I will undertake to examine the position. I thank Members of the committee for their attendance and their handling of these Estimates.

Chairman

That concludes our consideration of the Finance group of Estimates. I thank the Minister for Finance, his officials and the Members of the committee for their valuable and constructive contributions to the debate. We will resume our consideration of the Estimates at 2.30 p.m. when Vote 25 on the Environment will be discussed.

Sitting suspended at 12.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.

Vote 25 — Environment

(Supplementary Estimate).

Chairman

We will now discuss Supplementary Estimates in respect of Vote 25 for the Department of the Environment. The Supplementary Estimate is in respect of subheads B (1), C (3), F (10) and F (11). A proposed timetable for discussion of the Estimates was circulated to Members with their papers this morning. I will now ask the Minister to make his opening statement. Deputy Doyle, the Fine Gael spokesperson, has apologised for being unable to attend and, because of the non-availability of the Minister next week, it was impossible to have the Estimate deferred until then.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. M. Smith)

I understand that a briefing note has been circulated to Members of the committee on the various items which make up the Supplementary Estimate. The total amount involved is £13.377 million and this represents an increase of 1.7 per cent on the original 1993 Estimate. The greater part of the Supplementary Estimate will be incurred in relation to the development of the cultural heritage quarter of Temple Bar and the local authority housing construction programme. Small amounts also arise on recoupment of expenses incurred in operating motor tax offices and on payment of compensation in the famous Pine Valley case. I will elaborate briefly on the circumstances giving rise to all these items.

The Supplementary Estimate includes £5 million for the local authority housing programme. I am seeking this amount to replace capital funds which it was anticipated would have accrued to local authorities from the proceeds of the 1993 tenant purchase scheme in the current year. The 1993 Estimates were prepared on the assumption that the 1993 tenant purchase scheme would be in operation in early 1993 and that some £7.5 million would accrue to local authorities from the proceeds of sales under the scheme this year. It is a feature of the 1993 scheme that the total proceeds from sales would be reinvested in the local authority housing programme including new house building, remedial works and the provision of bathrooms.

Details of the 1993 tenant purchase scheme were issued to local autorities on 6 July. Each housing authority was required as a reserve function to adopt the purchase scheme, thus dispensing with the requirement that elected members approve of the sale of individual dwellings. As council meetings are not normally held in August many authorities did not adopt schemes until mid-September and tenants were subsequently notified of details of the scheme. The terms of the 1993 scheme require that each dwelling for which an application to purchase is received be professionally valued and, where appropriate, the applicant is encouraged to obtain a private sector mortgage for the dwelling. In addition the scheme has no formal closing date and the rush of applications at the initial stages which was a feature of previous schemes did not arise, nor was it expected.

This combination of circumstances has resulted in the number of individual sale transactions completed by the end of 1993 being well short of the 500 we had anticipated. That is not to say there has been a shortage of interest by the tenants in the scheme. Indeed by the end of September last, over 2,000 tenants had expressed an interest in purchasing their dwellings. In one sense I am pleased that this additional £5 million is required because it clearly demonstrates the real progress which local authorities have made in gearing up their housing programmes to meet an unprecedented three and a half fold increase in new house starts during the year.

In line with the commitment given in the Programme for a Partnership Government local authorities were authorised to start or acquire 3,500 houses in 1993 compared with only 1,000 in 1992. This increase represented a tremendous challenge to local authorities and one to which they have responded very well indeed. I would like to thank all the elected members and management officials throughout the country for an exceptional effort in this regard in 1993. Mid-November progress reports by local authorities indicate that approximately 2,300 houses have been started or acquired and that tenders have been received for 1,400 more.

Traditionally, new starts under the local authority housing programme are concentrated in the last quarter of the year. This long established trend was accentuated this year by the three-and-a-half fold increase in the number of starts to which I referred. The rate of progress on the programme in recent weeks is illustrated by the fact that between September and mid-November the number of starts or acquisitions increased from just under 1,300 to 2,300.

Another element in the Supplementary Estimate proposed today is the provision of an extra £1 million to recoup the cost of running motor tax offices. As Members are aware local authorities undertake the licensing of vehicles and drivers as agents of the State. The administrative cost incurred by the authorities is recouped by my Department. The total recoupment bill in 1993 will be £12 million including the £1 million included in this Supplementary Estimate and represents about 5.3 per cent of revenue collected by motor tax offices which should be over £220 million this year. The increased motor tax collection costs this year are due to the decision to retain the option to renew motor tax on a quarterly basis. The anticipated savings in relation to administrative and related costs were not, therefore, realised and it is proposed to make good the shortfall by a supplementary provision of £1 million.

The Government's development company, Temple Bar Properties, has now entered the main construction phase of a five year development programme involving projects valued at around £100 million. The Programme for a Partnership Government gave a commitment to complete the Temple Bar cultural quarter in Dublin and I am pleased to inform the committee that this programme is now well under way.

The programme of cultural activities, which has been devised by Temple Bar Properties in consultation with relevant cultural bodies, includes a number of different components. New buildings are being constructed which will house artistic activities and exploit the potential of vacant sites or buildings at the same time. In addition cultural organisations based in Temple Bar are being relocated in custom built premises or will have the benefit of being rehoused in refurbished or extended buildings. Work on the Irish Film Centre has been completed and work is in progress on the Viking centre, Temple Bar gallery, studio complex and craft centre. Other major cultural development schemes include a music centre, multi-media centre, children's culture centre, a centre for photography, artist and print studios and theatre complex. The total cost of the cultural programme planned for the Temple Bar area is expected to be £37.5 million. Proof projects will receive 75 per cent of the development costs from the European Structural Funds and the balance of funding will be provided through my Department's vote.

A sum of £5 million has already been approved from the current tranche of Structural Funds to the tourism programme in the current year. It is proposed to fund the balance of the 1993 programme in the sum of £6 million from the Supplementary Estimate before this committee. This will defray the residual balance of expenditure qualifying for European Union assistance and the full amount of certain costs which do not qualify, such as land acquisition, administration and marketing costs.

The final component of the Supplementary Estimate is an amount of £1.377 million to meet an award made against Ireland by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Pine Valley Developments Limited and Others v. Ireland. This case arose over a planning decision by the Minister for Local Government in March 1977.

The background to these proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights is long and complicated. This court found that a property developer and one of his associated companies suffered discrimination contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. This was because, in the Courts view, they were excluded from the benefits of the provisions of the Local Government (Planning and Developemnt) Act, 1982, which retrospectively validated certain planning permissions affected by the Supreme Court ruling. The European Court of Human Rights made its finding of discrimination in November 1991 but reserved the question of damages and costs and did not give its ruling on this aspect until 9 February 1993 by which time it was not possible to make any corresponding provision in this year's Estimates. The European Court of Human Rights awarded a total of £1.377 million in damages and costs and required this to be paid by 9 May 1993. Following further legal complications relating to entitlements in respect of the award, the Government discharged its obligations on foot of the ruling by paying the total amount awarded into the High Court on 14 May this year. I hope that what I outlined to the committee explains the need for the Supplementary Estimate, I will be pleased to elaborate on any items if Members so wish.

Mr. Finucane

I would like to share my time with Deputy Boylan. The Minister is probably aware that Deputy Doyle, our spokesperson has sent her apologies and was bitterly disappointed she could not be accommodated because she will be available all next week. I think her disappointment was exacerbated by the fact that she has been very vigilant in regard to attending all these committee sessions. She was invited to attend a recycling conference organised by the Department of the Environment in Wexford to which she had already made a commitment and which I think the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, will attend.

We appreciate the committee system because it gives us a chance of putting questions to the Minister in a more rational way than is possible in the Dáil at times. I hope in future that many items may be dealt with by committees.

This is a small Supplementary Estimate in the overall context of the Department of the Environment and within it there is provision for an extra amount to be spent on the local authority and social housing programme. The plan for social housing announced on 14 February 1991, by the Minister's predecessor, the then Deputy Flynn said that up to 6,500 local authority houses did not have a bathroom. My understanding, from reading that document, was that the provision of bathrooms would be one of the priorities. I know there has been a certain amount of social housing in most counties, including my own but it is a trickle in comparison to what was originally planned. I would like the Minister to comment on the plan and how its different parts are progressing.

I understand there has been a certain take-up on the shared ownership scheme and it is obviously filling a certain requirement but a perennial problem, at least for the local authority in which I am involved, is serious overcrowding in local authority houses and applications for extra bedrooms, etc. The social housing plan was to include measures to improve that situation but little has been happening in that direction. At a later stage the Minister might comment on the local authority side of the social housing programme.

Question marks were placed in the past over the provision of reconstruction grants and I accept that the reconstruction grants scheme in operation at one time were very open ended and cost a large amount of money. However, has any report been compiled with regard to people on a county council housing list at present who would be prepared to buy older type buildings and refurbish them? Even if certain extra conditions had to be imposed it would probably reduce the housing list and I would like the Minister to consider this proposal.

Mr. Boylan

I would give the Minister the amount he asks for and an equal amount on top if he had included a provision for another major social problem, county roads. They are not mentioned here, despite the fact that offices for the licensing and registration of motor vehicle are getting a welcome extra £1 million. Why should people not have the opportunity to tax their cars quarterly? Car tax is a large amount of money to be asked to pay on an annual basis. A car is a necessity, not a luxury, to enable people to get to work or whatever. The condition of county roads is a serious problem and if the Minister had included in this Estimate £20 million for their repair he would have had no difficulty in getting it passed because everybody understands the urgency of the problem. Many people experience great difficulty in getting to and from their homes in rural areas, especially in Cavan and Monaghan.

In relation to housing I support Deputy Finucane in relation to the house improvement grant. Marvellous work was done with that grant. Old houses were restructured with the instalment of windows and insulation and there was a huge take-up of the scheme. Every scheme is subject to some abuses and admittedly summer houses and other kinds of houses were refurbished for which the grant was not intended. However, in towns and villages throughout the country there are many solid old houses that people would be willing to buy if there was a reasonable grant available to refurbish them. Many reconstructable houses are becoming derelict and tidy towns committees are complaining about this. If the local authority could take them over, there are people who would be delighted to live in them.

Rural cottages, is another issue for which the Minister is slow to sanction agreement but if we are to keep people in rural areas we should be sanctioning more rural cottages. It is ridiculous that a local authority can offer only £20 for a site for a rural cottage to a farmer or a landowner. If a person needing housing can come up with a site the local authority can provide a sum of £20, a nominal fee; that is a form of compulsory acquisition and will not succeed. I am not saying that the Minister should pay the market price or over it but he should make a reasonable contribution say, £2,000. When will this sum be increased? That £20 has been there since I was elected to a local authority back in 1974. Maybe it was £10 then and £20 now but it was a ridiculous figure at any time. A reasonable figure would attract applicants. People are quite willing to leave towns and larger cities and move to rural areas. Young families can be reared in a good environment but people need incentives to move. I hope the Minister will include money for county roads when he makes budgetary provisions.

Mr. Ferris

Deputies who are members of local authorities endorse most of the comments already made about housing, rehousing, social housing, repairs and house improvements. In the past 12 months there has been an improvement on the initial approval from 1,000 houses to 3,500. However, there are still approximately 28,000 people in the country who need housing. There will have to be political consensus that this is a priority when people are in need, although I accept a number of innovative schemes have been introduced.

In the past some local authorities, despite having Government approval, did not build the houses for which they had been given an allocation. In 1992, 1,000 houses were promised and 800 were built which meant that 200 houses were not built in areas where there was need.

The Department is not entirely to blame. Much of the responsibility lies with local authorities. With regard to payment for sites in my constituency we pay more than people who acquire sites to build houses in isolated areas. We build some houses every year. We have a policy to build some houses every year particularly if we can keep somebody on a small farm in a rural area, which is good for the community. I have a problem with people who wish to leave rural areas and move into local authority areas. They want to forfeit their vested house and some of them might have three or four acres with it. We have a policy to take everything from them, not just the house but also the land. We do not really compensate them but we give them a house and charge rent for it. We have made great progress but we have still between 25,000 and 28,000 people in need.

We are passing an Estimate to make up the deficit of £5 million for 1993 but we hope the Minster, and his Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, who has a responsibility in this area, are listening to our comments. We need the progress to continue and improve, if possible. Some schemes mentioned in the Estimate are included in the social housing programme. There are problems regarding the legality of that programme in that repairs can be carried out in lieu of rehousing. Some local authorities are upset that bureaucracy, involving a range of legal requirements, is making it difficult when a job has commenced to get agreement between all sides on how it should be done. The Department, and the Minister, have a responsibility to get local authorities and their management to relax some of their strict interpretations of regulations. I want more work done in this area because housing is an investment in an area's future, whether it is a small village or a townland. All local authorities have a great record in this regard.

It was a source of concern that officialdom said that no more or not too many local authority houses would be built in an area when in the meantime housing lists were increasing. We spend a fortune under another subhead supplementing people who are renting unsuitable houses. Health boards and other agencies are paying out as much money subsidising private sector landlords that would provide houses for those people. An examination of the Department of Social Welfare, the supplementary welfare scheme of the Department of Health and the housing programme of the Department would indicate that we could save money in this area and erect houses in the future. It would also provide an opportunity for people at some stage to acquire them. While I welcome the existing scheme, it is too open ended and there is not much incentive for people to acquire their houses unless they have been a tenant for a long time and can gain the maximum amount of relief. In those circumstances it is usually a house that is not in the best of repair.

Another matter I wish to bring to the Minister's attention is the amount of money in all our Estimates for repairs to tenanted houses. This must be the worst value for money we get in any county, given the amount of money that is expended and the level of repairs. There must be some way of using that valuable and scarce money to ensure that the end result in what the tenants want. They deserve better when they are paying relatively high differential rents. I commend the Minister. He has our support for this increased allocation, which is required for an additional housing programme. We hope he will continue the good work in 1994.

Mr. E. Walsh

On the housing issue, I echo what has been said by my colleagues. I have no doubt but that the money sought in this request will be well spent. We all know the difficulties experienced by people who are on long waiting lists and living in unacceptable conditions with families. We are aware of the stress and strain which results from the overcrowding and unhealthy conditions of private flats. The commitment given in the Programme for a Partnership Government in regard to them has been adhered to and it has made a great difference to the people waiting for houses. I would like this continued in the next budget. If it is we will see a dramatic fall in the waiting lists and I have met many people who have encountered problems trying to get off or stay off the housing waiting list. They have difficulties in doing so because of the income limit under the shared ownership scheme. Many people who do not qualify because of the income limit place their names on the housing waiting list. The housing waiting list may be inflated to some extent due to the regulation regarding the income limit. People cannot avail of the shared ownership scheme unless they are placed on the housing waiting list and qualify that way. This should be examined. People on social welfare anxious to buy houses, and to move from private rented accommodation, under the shared ownership scheme, without going on the housing list, in some cases cannot do so simply because they are unemployed. The Minister, through the management system, should clearly state that nobody should be prevented from entering these schemes, except on one criteria only which is the ability to pay. It should be sufficient if a person can prove that they can pay for a dwelling.

I have come across cases of people with £133 disposal income from social welfare who were regarded as unsuitable for this scheme, whereas others who were employed and had disposable income of approximately £120 were eligible simply because they were employed. That is unacceptable. The shared ownership scheme has been quite successful and very useful. People are availing of it wherever possible. It should be examined again and any difficulties should be addressed.

I compliment the Minister on the work done in the Department in getting local authorities to come to terms with the building programme which should have received more attention earlier. It was clear following the Minister's intervention that quite a substantial amount of housing was not coming on stream as a result of sheer laziness on the part of certain elements in local authorities who just were not pushed about it. However, it has improved dramatically this year. The Department deserves great credit for that and I hope the progress will continue next year.

Regarding driving licences and registrations and the sum that is required, there is no doubt that there has been an improvement. People who had a problem keeping a car on the road were devastated by the fact that they might have to pay the tax in two half yearly sums. It was beyond some peoples means. People with low incomes just barely held on to their cars until this vital change. I thank the Minister for reconsidering the matter and returning to quarterly payments. My final comment is in relation to the Temple Bar Area scheme. Temple Bar is in existence because CIE, in its early days, decided it would prefer to erect a bus station in the city centre. It bought a substantial amount of property over a long period to prepare for that and in the meantime rented that property at very reasonable rates. As CIE could not overcome opposition to the proposal of a bus depot, the creation of the Temple Bar Area took place. CIE's good management of that property in the city centre resulted in it not being left to decay. It was rented at very reasonable sums to the groups who are now emerging as the entrepreneurs in that area.

The success of the Temple Bar Area will be the result of State investment. When the business climate improves and businesses in the area become profitable I cannot see why the State should not devise some mechanism to partly recoup some of the moneys invested by the State.

Mr. Penrose

The Minister is assured of my solid support with regard to the provision of public sector housing, an issue which is of great concern to me. Coming from a rural area I have seen what a major problem we have in relation to the waiting list for housing. In Westmeath at present there are more than 300 people on the housing waiting list.

The commitment in the Programme for a Partnership Government to provide 3,500 houses was welcomed with great joy throughout the country. I urge the Minister to ensure that the same level of housing will be provided in 1994. It is crucial. Families in rural areas are living in mobile homes and caravans under extremely difficult conditions with electric wires running from their neighbours' and families' houses to provide power. Such living conditions should not be allowed to continue as we approach the 21st century. We must ensure the safety of those people. I have a great fear of accidents occurring in those mobile homes and caravans which are totally unsuitable for families. We must continue the housing policy that has been initiated and has widespread support. More than 28,000 people are still on the housing waiting list and while that figure remains we cannot sleep or rest easy.

There is an important side effect to the provision of public housing. Every house that is built results in the creation of one direct and one indirect job. This important to the many small contractors and sub-contractors throughout the country. The scheme was a life saver for the many contractors who had been under pressure. They are now thanking the Department of the Environment.

There is one drawback to the tenant purchase scheme from the point of view of a member of a local authority. The local authority was allowed to use 40 per cent of the moneys for internal resources. That was an important aspect of local authority financing. That will not be the case under the tenant purchase scheme. If the local authority sells a house to a tenant the Minister will provide the money to the local authority to replace that house. However, local authorities will be under pressure in times of financial stringency as a result of these moneys not being available in the future.

There has been a slow take-up. People are waiting for an opportune time. The fact that there is no time limit gives people the opportunity to choose the right time when they will not be under pressure. In that regard I welcome the fact that the scheme is open ended.

Although finance is scarce, the Minister should give consideration to the problem of overcrowding. A grant of £2,500 or £3,000 to a husband and wife with four or five children or a mixed family approaching the teenage years would be the equivalent of winning the lottery in terms of providing extra space. It is a matter I will continue to bring to the Minister's attention. As a public representative, I am often asked at my clinics about the availability of grants. People ask if grants will be reintroduced so that they can provide the extra room. They seek the extra room not to improve the value of their dwelling but to provide a small degree of comfort in their home. The Minister, and his officials, should give some consideration to providing a grant to relieve the problem of overcrowding.

Many of our old peoples' houses require refurbishment. Minimum refurbishment of their homes, for example, the provision of a toilet and bathroom, would give such people comfort for the rest of their lives. While it may be said that the health boards are active in that area, their finances are limited. The provision of finance from the Department of the Environment would send a clear signal to such people.

I am delighted that the Minister has amended the regulation in regard to the renewal of motor tax. It can be renewed on a quarterly basis rather than a half yearly basis. In rural areas, where public transport is scarce, young people must have a car. They are already penalised by insurance costs and the car tax proposal was a further punitive imposition. I wholeheartedly thank the Minister, on behalf of a number of people in my constituency who were extremely concerned about that proposal.

The shared ownership scheme is a good scheme. Last March I asked the Minister to abolish the requirement for the £1,000 deposit. The Minister did not agree at that time and, with the benefit of hindsight, I can see why. An important aspect of the scheme is that while 50 per cent of the mortgage is taken on by the person acquiring the property, the equity type insurance is available to ensure that people will have some equity to meet the other 50 per cent of the mortgage which must be paid over 20 or 25 years. The Minister should consider extending that further. People who borrow the £12,500 or £13,000 by means of a mortgage will probably find it tough, unless their circumstances improve, to pay the other £13,000 plus the extra amount due as a result of inflation in the intervening 20 to 25 years. It is a very good scheme and there is interest in it.

The Minister has my wholehearted support in relation to the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. B. Smith

I support the request for extra local authority housing. In 1994 both Cavan County Council and Cavan Urban District Council will need a sizeable increase in their previous levels of funding. I make a special appeal to the Minister to reintroduce a house improvement grant scheme. Many homes, unfortunately, lack basic sanitary facilities and basic comforts. Many hardworking householders are not in a position to avail of present housing schemes and some financial assistance should be made towards the provision of proper standards for those people. Such a scheme should be restricted and be available only for a person's principal residence. It would, in addition to raising housing standards, provide direct employment.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. M. Smith)

I thank my colleagues on all sides for their support of the Estimate. I am sorry we were unable, due to the constraints at the end of a session, to facilitate Deputy Avril Doyle in her desire to be here. It is well known that in relation to environmental matters Deputy Doyle always makes herself available. Due to the requirement to have the Dublin Bill concluded in the other House it was not possible to put the Estimates back another week.

Deputy Finucane asked about the shared ownership scheme. The national figures as of 30 September 1993 are 2,890 approvals and 1,265 completed transactions. The scheme had a slow take off and we would have liked it to have gathered momentum much earlier. Dublin county was one of the authorities which sponsored the shared ownership scheme from the very beginning with considerable involvement by people at local authority level and a number of people's needs have been met through the scheme. I urge other local authorities who have not yet given it the same support to do so to ensure we get the maximum benefit from this system which operates so successfully in the North and in many other parts of the world.

Limerick county had permission for something like 45 starts this year. The council there has made a start in all cases and will be accommodating something like 110 housing applicants between all the various schemes in County Limerick. There is, however, a considerable waiting list and we have to maintain the momentum as much as possible. Direct building, the new local authority build programme and acquisition will always be the most important elements in solving the housing problem but should never be looked at as the only options, experience of the shared ownership scheme is proof of that.

A number of Deputies referred to the work in lieu of local authority housing schemes. Deputy Ferris referred to bureaucratic obstacles in the way of that scheme by some local authorities. Clearly this scheme, for whatever reason, has not developed as envisaged. A total of 115 houses were completed by 30 September 1993 and work is in progress on another 74 houses.

Bearing in mind the need with which we are all familiar and the reference in almost all contributions here to the need for a reconstruction grant, the work in lieu of a local authority scheme, given the value of the interest free loan, is more than the equivalent of most of the past reconstruction grants over a period of time. There are a great number of houses providing opportunities for individuals on the housing list to avail of this scheme as they would avail of the reconstruction grant scheme I am being asked to introduce.

There is no going back to the type of reconstruction grant scheme in the past which proved excessively expensive and inadequately focused. Many people, who could have afforded to do the work themselves, benefited from that scheme and deprived us of Exchequer resources which we could have dedicated to the purpose for which Deputies now seek to have funds committed. Perhaps at some stage it may be possible, when resources permit, to introduce a targeted reconstruction scheme. I will leave that option on the table but it will not be possible within the foreseeable future.

I ask Members here who are serving on local authorities to promote the work in lieu of the local authority house development scheme which is in essence a reconstruction grant, a type of house extension grant, and we would like to see greater momentum here.

Since 1991 we have had a bathroom scheme, the first of its kind to be introduced here and almost 1,000 houses have benefited. The Programme for a Partnership Government commits the Government to continuing and accelerating if possible the provision of basic sanitary facilities for existing houses. Not only is there a commitment but the record of the last three years shows that almost 1,000 houses have benefited under that scheme.

In relation to local authority housing development, that is, new build and acquisition, considerable effort was made by all local authorities this year. I would like to thank my colleague, Deputy Stagg, who has primary responsibility in this area and who has been in contact with all local authorities to ensure the kind of progress which was necessary to meet the commitments made. That programme has considerable resource implications for local authorities and, as I outlined earlier, many of these houses start up towards the end of the year. There has been a massive increase in building and it was not possible to get all houses started at one time so starts moved towards the end of the year. That means the bulk of the resources necessary for those starts has still to be provided so we will see a considerable increase in the amount of resources dedicated to public authority housing in 1994. It may not be possible to maintain the same momentum because we will be picking up a large part of last year's cost for houses that have just started while at the same time trying to ensure that a considerable number of new starts and acquisitions will be made again this year.

It would be impossible for Deputy Boylan or Deputy Brendan Smith to make a contribution here which would not include a reference to county roads. We selected Cavan for priority treatment and if we were to provide the same kind of funds everywhere else for county roads I would be in a very difficult position. Cavan has problems which cannot be overcome overnight and I have declared it a special case.

I know a considerable effort is being made by Members there and by the council and that a number of pilot schemes have been carried out. We look forward to increasing resources in 1994 to all local authorities, including Cavan. Many of the new commitments will be developmental rather than maintenance in character, in other words we will not waste money on matters which have to be addressed every five or six months. People will know that over the next six years adequate resources will be allocated but they may have to wait a little while and in the meantime we do not want to waste money which could more usefully be put towards new bills or improvement schemes.

Mr. Finucane

Will that apply to all authorities?

Mr. M. Smith

Yes, where they submit schemes which meet the criteria. Schemes will have to be submitted to the EU.

Mr. Boylan

We will be await the budget announcement.

Mr. M. Smith

County Cavan has always had a terrific capacity for self-determination and I am quite sure that the resources provided by the Cavan people to do this job will be increased to the same extent.

Deputy Eamon Walsh asked a question about shared ownership and the income limits for that scheme. We have committed ourselves to a total review of that scheme. It is not possible to say whether we will be able to meet all the requirements outlined here today but we have been operating the scheme for a couple of years now and while there were some problems earlier on we were able to deal with them. We hope to solve other where there is clear justification for doing so within the resources available to meet our commitments in this regard.

In relation to people on social welfare benefit availing of the shared ownership scheme, nobody is debarred provided they can meet their financial commitments under it. I was very proud to attend a meeting of a county council in the Leinster province where the first shared ownership option was granted to a person on social welfare 18 months ago. From the point of view of the Department of the Environment there is no prohibition in relation to their inclusion in that scheme.

I do not think we will go into the history of Temple Bar. It is an existing project to which we are giving good support at EU and Exchequer level and we look forward to getting a substantial return. The pay back would be a springboard which creates new vitality, shopping, retail, commercial and cultural jobs and increases in PRSI and tax returns. Deputy Walsh considers that we should get a full payback from any investment made but that may be an extreme position to adopt.

With regard to the tenant purchase scheme, Deputy Penrose was afraid that changed conditions requiring the dedication of resources to new houses and acquisition would affect county council finances. However, he supports the notion that provision of resources for new local authority buildings is a priority. We want to be able to support it as well. I have said many times that the greatest contribution a local authority tenant can make is to pay the maximum with a normal discount so that sons and daughters will be in an equally good position to get the same type of accommodation and that is the way we are going. People have the option to participate in this openended scheme at any time and this means the numbers availing of it each year will probably remain static. Given the 40 per cent that local authorities receive at present from their annuities on those houses — until it is repaid — there should not be a dramatic change in the finances of local authorities by virtue of this type of scheme.

Housing for the elderly includes the provision of bathrooms and we also have a housing task force for the elderly. The Minister for Health and the health boards are involved in a number of schemes together with those carried out by local authorities including extending the life of homes for elderly people. The Department of the Environment will support schemes which reflect changes to commit resources in the case of physically handicapped, disabled or old people. There is a limit to the resources available but I will keep in mind any suggestion in relation to extending the life of houses for people whose housing is inadequate, who are old and who may also have other problems.

With regard to local authority housing and a more targeted reconstruction scheme I dealt with the question raised by Deputy Brendan Smith. I have extracted the Department of the Environment from any direct involvement in acquisition. The responsibility for acquisition and matters of that kind is solely with the local authority. Years ago some local authorities favoured compulsory acquisition where arbitration was involved — but now each authority decides its way of handling matters of that kind. If the Deputy has a particular instance in mind he might give me the details and I will see to what extent I can have it investigated.

Mr. Boylan

The Department directive says that the maximum to be paid for a site for a rural cottage is £20. It is a nominal fee paid for legalities.

Mr. M. Smith

I do not want to be facetious. That may have been the position in the 1940s or 1950s but it is not now.

Mr. Finucane

I will be attending a meeting tonight where the topic will be county roads. I have three questions and one is in relation to road tax. Why should the £200 million taken in road tax not be devoted to roads? What is the Minister's response because that question will come up at the meeting tonight?

In the National Development Plan there was talk of provision for regional and county roads where the tourism and industrial impact was important. In one of the national papers a few weeks ago there was an article to the effect that the EU was questioning the validity of this allocation for regional and county roads. I do not know whether that is true or what was behind the article. Is there provision within the life of the National Development Plan for an extra tranche of funds on top of that available for regional and county roads? We are used to the allocation being topped up by a few percentage points each year but that is still doing it in a piecemeal fashion because of lack of funds. There is an expectation among local authorities that from 1994 or 1995 onwards there may be a rise in the allocation for regional and county roads. How much money has been allocated?

Finally, it would appear the Minister wishes to move away from tar patching. I agree with the Deputy that this is a waste of money. Potholes are filled with chippings which the rain then removes. The Minister advised that he is seeking a more permanent solution and is preparing a plan for six years and so on which people will be prepared to wait for. Is the Minister, therefore, disapproving of councillors spending £500,000 on filling in potholes and putting in chippings?

Mr. M. Smith

We could not run the business of Government on the basis of trying to decide when the local elections are going to take place. This may be something that is dominating the Deputy's mind at present.

Mr. Finucane

It is not.

Mr. M. Smith

It is far from my mind. The question of not dedicating the resources available to the community as a whole from the road tax for road purposes is an age old one and many members of the community often ask that type of question. The only way that one can answer it is by saying that there are a number of activities taking place in the country for which the taxpayer, ratepayer or the user pays, in the form of a licence or whatever.

If the money which is raised for the purpose is dedicated solely and entirely to that purpose, for example, in the case of road tax for roads, I ask the Deputy, where will the Government obtain resources for social welfare, education, health and the areas where it is not possible to raise funds, even where there is a public expectation that they should be entitled to have them as a local or national service?

It is important to realise that if one were to dedicate all the resources raised from one specific area, one would have to embrace additional taxation from some other source to cover the areas from which that money is being dedicated. There is not a pool of resources that is untapped. All resources are being used.

Regarding the national plan, over the six years the resources to be dedicated to regional and county roads is £475 million. This includes the element of Exchequer funds which is presently available for county roads and the element of Exchequer and EU funds that have to match to give us the additional funds.

Unlike every other part of the plan, this must be negotiated. There is no evidence, nor was there anything to sustain the remarks made by Deputy Doyle in relation to environmental services. In fact, the opposite is the position. We have received favourable comments from the EU Commission on our submission with regard to environmental services, but all the schemes must be negotiated through the Commission and eventually we hope to be successful.

The difference in relation to the resources from the EU for county and regional roads — when and if we are successful — is that they cannot be dedicated to maintenance; they must be improvement schemes. I agree with this and it does not take away the responsibility from the local authority through its own resources and through the discretionary grant which is provided by my Department to carry out normal maintenance, because there are good types of normal maintenance and many experiments have been carried out. There are times of the year when maintenance should be undertaken and there are activities relating to this area, such as hedges, road drainage and many other ancillary matters that have to be attended to. I do not wish to be taken as indicating that the local authorities do not have the responsibility to maintain roads in a reasonably good standard up to the time that a major improvement scheme can be carried out. The public are entitled to the best efforts we can make on their behalf.

Mr. M. McDowell

I understand that Deputy Walsh made some laudatory remarks about Temple Bar Properties Limited and the Temple Bar scheme. I wish to express a somewhat contrary point of view. That part of the city is in my constituency and I am anxious that the current pattern of expenditure being undertaken is producing something which is not a commercial heart of the city, but something which is tending towards the effete in terms of atmosphere, character and land use.

I understand that there is a proposal to put a bridge across the Liffey which, half way across the river will dip down like a snake. This will offend most peoples' artistic or aesthetic sensibilities. I wish to know who makes decisions about these matters which affect the whole city? Is the Liffey the property of the corporation or is any citizen free to erect a bridge across a river as long as he gets planning permission? Have the people of Dublin no choice on the nature of such a proposal, given that we will all have to live with it?

Given that the ethos of the Temple Bar area is a singular view with regard to architecture, the rest of us may not go along with this and may have some reservations about taxpayers money being ploughed into a bridge of this kind in which the ordinary Joe Soap, who has to live in the area and look at it, has no say.

Mr. M. Smith

On the first point regarding the question of design, there was an architectural competition at the outset.

Mr. M. McDowell

Presumably that is how the design was chosen?

Mr. M. Smith

We all have different views as to that is beautiful. Regarding the bridge, this is currently before the corporation for planning permission and the local authority represents the community in its determination of applications of that kind in the same way as it would have responsibility for any other type of proposal.

Mr. M. McDowell

Has Temple Bar Properties Limited power to build a bridge? May I build a bridge across the Liffey and what power have they to build the bridge?

Mr. M. Smith

The local authority has power to build it in the name of the community.

Mr. M. McDowell

Presumably it chose the design?

Chairman

I ask the Deputy to allow the Minister to reply.

Mr. M. Smith

For many years arguments have been made regarding the redevelopment and the shape of the inner city and there are many different views on it. Not everyone is going to be satisfied with what will emerge but this development is being well screened. The bridge will be subject to normal planning procedures and, ultimately, we hope the cultural, commercial and artistic development of that part of the city will be something of which all may be proud.

We have worked hard to obtain resources, both at EU and Exchequer level. As the Deputy is aware, we are represented on the board and keep on top of, and involved in the determination of these matters in so far as we can.

Mr. M. McDowell

I hope to see what statutory measures are available. For example, have I the power to build a bridge across the Liffey and must I provide it free or can I charge a toll? Has Temple Bar Properties Limited a statutory measure whereby it can build a bridge? I cannot understand how, unless the corporation can refuse them planning permission, they chose the design and we all have to live with this monstrosity at the end of the day.

Mr. Broughan

What is wrong with it?

Mr. M. McDowell

It is ugly.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): Like wavy hair?

Mr. M. McDowell

Correct.

Mr. M. Smith

Temple Bar Properties Limited has the statutory power for the overall development of that area. It is a matter that is not going to be decided by the Deputy or myself.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): They are not too badly off in Dublin.

Mr. Boylan

I would like clarification on one point. It will come as a surprise ——

Mr. Finucane

Sling it over the wavy bridge. The people of Dublin will be delighted and the Deputy can take it to Cavan.

Mr. Boylan

The Minister made a statement which came as a surprise to me and will come as a surprise to many people, that the £200 million which is collected in road tax —£70 for every man, woman and child — is not all spent on roads but is used to prop up other services such as social welfare and health. That being the case, surely the people living off the laneways I described are entitled to a road similar to our national primary and secondary roads. Why should they be penalised? Why should they have to worry about how they will get a hearse in if there is a death in the family, if moneys are being siphoned from the fund to which they are contributing to prop up other services?

Mr. M. Smith

I answered that question and Deputy Boylan, if he wants to make that part of Fine Gael policy, should say where he is going to raise the additional money for other services which will be lost to the Exchequer. I cannot say that we can dedicate all these resources to roads although the total amount spent on roads, which includes EC resources, is more than £100 million in excess of the total raised from motor tax.

This is a local political point that can be made to communities who ask why money is being spent in Athlone, Mullingar or elsewhere, and not in their area. County Cavan, and many other counties, depend for their real commercial existence and future on getting the products produced in their county exported. They are not going to be sold in County Cavan. They require me to make sure that the routes which lead them to the airports and the sea ports give them the best chance to compete.

I emphasise that that is a national policy supported not only by this Government but by previous Governments and by every independent economic commentary on what is necessary for our infrastructure. What I tried to do in this plan is to change the orientation in relation to national primaries in the work that we would do to try to deal with the big intersections as well as the bypasses, and to move progressively towards improvement schemes in the regional and county roads. That is fundamental to my view and I intend to increase and devote the maximum resources possible towards the resolution of problems that people face in County Cavan, and other areas, in relation to the poor quality of country roads.

This problem did not emerge overnight. Decisions could have been taken in County Cavan a long time ago that would have helped greatly to avoid the present position. However, the community has a problem and we are facing up to it as well as we can.

Mr. Boylan

My philosophy is that every herring hangs by its own tail. Roads should be financed from road tax receipts, social welfare should be financed from people paying PRSI and health contributions. I agree that the major roadways are important, but if one cannot get to the major roadways then there is a problem. That is the problem facing many people in Cavan.

Mr. Finucane

How much has been spent on regional and county roads this year out of the Department of the Environment's Estimate.

Mr. M. Smith

A sum of £63 million.

Mr. Finucane

It would be £95 million a year when averaged out so there would be quite a topping up there.

Mr. M. Smith

It has to be negotiated.

Mr. Finucane

I know.

Mr. M. Smith

As in many other cases, we would have to progressively move our resources up gradually to meet those overall commitments. As with housing, it will take some time to gear up because we do not have any real current proposals for improvement schemes in the Department but I expect that they will be coming in soon.

Mr. B. Smith

I have one final question. The Minister mentioned quite rightly that we need to get value for money and that the councils and local authorities need to carry out work that will last. I can assure him that with the increased allocation he will give us in 1994, Cavan County Council will give him good value for the allocation.

Mr. Boylan

I support that.

Chairman

That concludes our consideration of the Supplementary Estimate in respect of Vote 25, Environment.

I would like to thank the Minister for the Environment, his officials and also the members of the Select Committee for their valuable and constructive contributions to the debate. As we have now concluded our consideration of the Supplementary and additional Estimates relevant to the Select Committee, I now propose that the following report be made to the Dáil:

The Select Committee has considered the Supplementary Estimates for the services of the year ended 31 December 1993, in respect of Vote 7 — Superannuation and Retired Allowances; Vote 13 — Office of the Attorney General; Vote 15 — Valuation and Ordnance Survey and Vote 25 — Environment; an additional Estimate for the services of the year ended 31 December 1993, in respect of Vote 45 — Increase in Remunerations and Pensions, and an excess Vote in respect of Vote 11 — State Laboratory for 1991. These Supplementary and additional Estimates and excess Vote are hereby reported to the Dáil.

Report agreed to.

Ordered to report to the Dáil accordingly.

Chairman

By order of the Dáil of 7 December, the 1993 NESC Report No. 96 has been referred to the Select Committee pursuant to paragraph 1.5 of the terms of reference. When it is proposed that the committee meet to discuss the report? It has been suggested that we will meet in mid-January by arrangement with the convenors. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Select Committee adjourned at 3.45 p.m.