Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs debate -
Thursday, 26 May 1994

Vote 25 — Environment (Revised Estimate).

Today we will discuss the Estimates for Public Services 1994, Vote 25 — Department of the Environment. The proposed timetable has been circulated to Members. Is the timetable agreed? Agreed. I am seeking a proposal that Deputy Kenneally take over as Chairman from 11.30 a.m. to 1 p.m.?

I propose.

This is the second occasion on which the annual Estimate for the Department of the Environment has come before the Select Committee. On the last occasion, we had a very constructive debate and exchange of information, and I look forward to a similar debate today. To facilitate this a briefing note has been circulated giving details of the overall Vote structure, the different programmes and the purposes for which the individual expenditure allocations are provided. Deputies Browne and Stagg, the Ministers of State at my Department, and I will be happy to assist the committee in any way we can during the question and answer session.

This year my Department will spend almost £830 million and the combined expenditure of local authorities and the Department will exceeed £1.6 billion, after making allowances for payments between the different levels. This expenditure gives direct public sector employment to more than 30,000 people and underpins many thousands of jobs in the private sector. The services and facilities involved are essential for social and economic development and for the maintenance of a clean and healthy environment.

With a time limit of 15 minutes, Deputies will appreciate that this opening statement can touch on only a few of the major spending areas covered by the Vote. I hope to have have an opportunity to comment on other services and activities as the debate progresses.

The Programme for a Partnership Government afforded major priority to housing. It committed us to a two-pronged approach: speeding up implementation of the plan for social housing and devoting greater resources to local authority housing. The programme promised 3,500 local authority house starts in 1993 and this target was exceeded with 3,800 starts achieved. A further 3,500 starts have been authorised for 1994 with a capital provision of £129 million, or almost double last year's level.

Housing authorities responded well last year in organising a major increase in the local authority housing construction programme and I have no doubt that this year's target of 3,500 starts will also be achieved. The expanded programme continues to benefit the construction industry — it provides 3,000 jobs directly and a similar number of indirect jobs. As the programme is spread throughout the country, most areas benefit from the employment provided.

The new measures introduced in the plan for social housing are making a substantial contribution to meeting social housing needs. Under the shared ownership scheme about 1,000 households took up occupation last year of the homes of their choice. This figure will grow in 1994. Output by the voluntary sector has increased with the aid of the Exchequer capital and subsidy provisions introduced under the plan. Almost 900 dwellings were provided by voluntary housing associations last year and, with the additional funds provided, a higher number of completions will be achieved this year. All the plan schemes are currently under review to see how the terms and conditions of the various measures might be amended or modified to ensure that they achieve their full potential.

Between the local authorities, voluntary bodies and the other social housing schemes, together with vacancies arising in the local authority rented housing stock, over 9,000 households in housing need will be accommodated in 1994 and in 1995. This compares with 7,000 in 1993 and 6,100 in 1992. Thus annual social housing provision will have increased by 50 per cent in two years, significantly improving general access to housing and shortening the length of time people are spending on waiting lists.

The level of need for local authority housing was assessed by housing authorities in March 1993 when the results showed a net need of 28,624. The increased output should reduce this figure, with first time lettings up by about 2,000 this year on 1993, although new applicants will replace some of those housed.

To provide a better insight into the nature of our housing needs and the most appropriate solutions to them the ESRI have been asked to undertake a full analysis and evaluation of the results of the local authority assessments. The study will identify the factors influencing trends in the level of needs and help to develop methods of forecasting future trends. It will also examine the consistency of approach between housing authorities in the measurement of needs and, in this way, help to provide a more equitable and effective basis for the allocation of resources to different areas. Additional dwellings do not come cheaply. We have had to increase the Exchequer provision by over £48 million to £93 million this year — an increase of 110 per cent. Internal capital receipts will bring total spending to £129 million in 1994 on the construction and acquisition of local authority housing.

The climate for home ownership and the house building sector generally is positive at present, due to the upturn in the economy and the favourable trend in mortgage rates. There is a good competitive mortgage market, with loans widely available and interest rates at their lowest level since the 1960s. All indications are that the house building industry is in for a period of strong growth, with total output probably at its highest for ten years. I expect substantially more completions in 1994 than the 19,300 new private houses built last year.

At the other end of the scale I am happy to record that the proposals on homelessness in the Programme for a Partnership Government have been implemented, in so far as my Department is concerned. I can go into this matter in more detail later if Members wish.

The accommodation position of travellers is less satisfactory. While steady progress has been made over the years it has not been sufficient to meet emerging needs. Achieving the Government's target of providing sufficient caravan parks to accommodate travelling people by the year 2000 will require a much more pro-active approach by housing authorities than has been the case up to now. The Estimate includes £3.5 million for the construction of caravan parks in 1994 and, as in earlier years, we have told local authorities that further funds will be made available as required.

The largest single provision in the Estimate for 1994 is for roads, with a total of over £300 million being allocated for work on national and non-national roads. Over the six years 1994-1999, over £1 billion will be invested in the improvement of the national primary road network, with substantial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund and the new Cohesion Fund.

Allowing for the additional funds being provided by the Exchequer, the agreement we have reached with the EU Commission in relation to co-financing and the input from local resources, expenditure on the maintenance and improvement of non-national roads over the six year period 1994-1999 will also come to about £1 billion.

The provision for national roads this year includes over £139 million for major road improvement schemes and over £34 million for other improvements on the national road network. In addition, grants of over £21 million are being provided for maintenance works. We are committed to providing very substantial resources for the vitally important task of improving our network of national roads and, in particular, to completing the primary network by 2005. The 1994 provision is significantly up on the average annual provision during the last five years, and this will be maintained over the life of the current National Development Plan.

To further strengthen the focus and commitment to the national road network, the National Roads Authority was set up on a statutory basis with effect from 1 January 1994, with the specific mandate of securing the provision of a safe and efficient network. The Authority has overall responsibility for planning and supervising the construction, improvement and maintenance of the network of national roads and, beginning this year, took over from me the responsibility of making grant allocations to local authorities for individual projects.

Traditionally, work on the maintenance and improvement of non-national roads, including county and regional roads, was financed from local resources, with only limited grants from the Exchequer and then only for improvement works. Since the introduction in 1989 of Exchequer grants for non-national road maintenance work, the financial arrangements have changed dramatically. The bulk of the cost is now being carried by the Exchequer but this does not, of course, detract from the responsibility of local authorities to plan, manage and implement cost-effective maintenance and management programmes.

Two weeks ago I announced details of an additional £38.6 million grants package for non-national roads, in addition to the block grant allocations of £67.8 million for the maintenance and improvement of these roads which were notified to local authorities last February. The additional allocations brought total grants for non-national roads this year to £106.4 million, an increase of more than £31 million on the figure for 1993.

Every single county benefited from the increased grants this year. Overall, grants for non-national roads are up by more than 40 per cent as against last year. Individual counties got increases of up to £1 million, and in some cases more, depending on their size and their needs. The investment by the Exchequer in 1994 will now amount to £1,968 for every mile of non-national road in the country, compared with only £882 per mile in 1988. The funds from the Exchequer will be supplemented by spending of about £61 million from local authorities' resources, bringing total spending on non-national roads this year to over £167 million, or nearly £3,100 per mile, on average.

The grants allocated this year include £33.6 million under a new scheme which will meet the cost of specific improvement projects on non-national roads. These grants, which will qualify for aid from the EU, relate to projects which will have a significant economic impact, particularly as regards employment and industrial, tourism, fisheries, forestry, agriculture and rural development. They represent the first tranche of a six-year programme of EU co-financing for non-national roads.

This year's non-national road grants also include additional allocations to county councils for the upgrading of county roads. The extra money is to be targeted at the most pressing problems, including those arising from the weather conditions experienced in the last six months. It is intended to make an immediate impact on the most seriously deficient road sections. The extra provisions bring State grants for maintenance alone to £33.3 million in 1994, almost three times the 1993 provision of £12.3 million.

My Department continues to be active on many fronts in protecting and enhancing the quality of our environment. The Environmental Protection Agency has been established, and a system of integrated pollution control licensing has recently been introduced. A new Waste Bill is being finalised. We continue to play an active part in national and international efforts to secure environmental well-being. However, the Estimates are concerned with the provision of finance and the water and sanitary services programme has been and will continue to be the aspect of our environmental efforts which utilises the greatest share of financial resources. For the second year in succession, this important programme is to attract an historically high level of investment, with a total of £122 million being provided in 1994.

Last year, investment reached almost £119 million. Over £37 million was spent on the provision of new and improved water supply schemes including those at Killbegs, Ballymore Eustace, north Roscommon, Fardystown, Nenagh, Kells/ Oldcastle, north Dublin, Lough Mask and Dún Laoghaire. Work on many of these schemes will continue this year. Almost £82 million of last year's provision went towards the development and construction of new and improved sewage facilities including those at Tralee, Greystones, Dingle, Longford, Kanturk, Tuam, Clonmel, Dún Laoghaire, Wexford, Cork, Ringsend and Howth. Real progress is now being made towards compliance with the urban waste water Directive. In all, 1993 saw the completion of construction work on 27 major schemes, involving a total investment of £59 million.

The creation of sustainable employment is at the top of the Government's agenda and the water services programme is directly linked to this. Good quality water in adequate quantity is a prerequisite for many industries, including agri-food, pharmaceuticals, fisheries and tourism. Progress on this programme also guarantees that safe sewage disposal facilities are in place and that job creation will not be at the expense of our relatively pollution-free environment. Our clean rivers, seas and lakes are a major attraction. If we continue to protect these resources, the expansion of our tourist and other water-related industries will follow.

I assure the committee that this programme will continue to be a priority in terms of investment. We will spend, between now and the end of the decade, in the region of £100 million annually, much of which will attract EU support. This investment will ensure that not only are our legal obligations under EU Directives met but also that our natural resources, which are themselves a basis for growth and economic advantage, are protected.

My Department will continue to assess and give priority to all projects in the programme in an economic and environmental context. All aspects of projects will be monitored from conceptual design through to commissioning, with a view to ensuring the cost-effectiveness and suitability of schemes. In addition, the scope for utilising options such as conservation, metering and leak detection will be fully examined.

The provision of new and improved water and sewerage facilities is costly. Despite high levels of investment, it will not be possible to meet all demands for the full level of services unless consumers — commercial and domestic —pay their fair share, in terms of the capital and running costs.

One of the most successful programmes undertaken in this country over the past decade has been the urban renewal scheme. The success of the scheme can be measured by the fact that private sector investment generated by the scheme is in excess of £1.2 billion between projects completed, in progress or in planning in designated areas throughout the country.

The tax incentives and rates reliefs provided by the scheme have attracted private sector developments to areas which were previously considered non-viable and without development potential. With environmental improvements in inner city areas, the tax incentives have helped to breathe new life into core areas of our cities and towns by creating a demand for urban living. This is especially true of Dublin, where there has been a huge upsurge in the number of residential units built over the last two or three years, and where most purchasers of apartments are owner-occupiers.

Despite the success to date, much work still needs to be done to rejuvenate core areas of our cities and towns. A new, more targeted urban renewal scheme will commence on 1 August 1994. The overall acreage of designated areas in the five main cities will be reduced and in the process some new areas will be included. The existing designated areas in the provincial towns will generally be retained and the scheme extended to 12 new towns.

The new scheme has been tailored to achieve specific urban renewal objectives. Greater emphasis will be placed on residential development and there will be a bias in favour of the restoration and refurbishment of existing premises. To facilitate the conversion of existing premises into family sized residential units, the floor area maximum will be increased to 125 square metres for refurbished apartments in designated areas.

The urban renewal scheme has already contributed to job creation, with a substantial number of construction jobs and long term jobs being created. Up to now, the long term jobs have arisen from the office, commercial and services sector. Under the new scheme an accelerated capital allowance of 50 per cent will be provided for industrial units, which will encourage the development of small enterprise units, bringing with them much needed manufacturing jobs.

To build on the achievements of the existing scheme, provision has been made in the National Development Plan for an urban renewal programme, operating as two sub-programmes. Grant-aid will be made available to assist local authorities in carrying out environmental upgrading and streetscape works in selected urban areas incorporating cultural, hertitage and conservation projects. Grant-aid will also be provided to assist in the provision of a range of cultural facilties in the Temple Bar area of Dublin. These developments will be carried out by the Government's development implementation company, Temple Bar Properties Limited. It will make an important contribution to this unique area of Dublin and ensure that it becomes a major attraction for Dubliners and tourists alike.

The limited time available does not allow me to address many other important functions and services for which my Department is responsible, but with the assistance of my Minister of State, I will be happy to deal with issues which Members may wish to raise. I conclude by expressing confidence that the 1994 Estimate will enable my Department and the local authorities to continue to provide the range of services necessary for the well-being of our economy, society and environment.

I want to refer to the percentage breakdown of this Estimate. If one looks at the total Estimate, one will see that 22 per cent is in respect of the rates support grant, which indicates that the Department is giving less money to local government, where it should be spent. There is an ongoing dispute as to whether central Government is prepared to fund local government and that argument must be resolved. One cannot have a creaking system because people cannot make political decisions as to how it should be funded. Will it continue to be funded from central funds or by the Taoiseach's new super property tax? Local government is to centralised and the real potential in its structures is not being tapped into. If the wealth of talent in the communities was allowed to develop properly, with some support from a local government system, it could create job opportunities and local initiative to develop enterprise in the local society.

I am not satisfied, and I said this to the Minister during the debate on the Local Government Bill, 1994, that local authorities are examining their expenditure properly. There is no uniform system for auditing and no in-depth examination of the annual Estimates by the elected members. The county manager has too much power as regards the production of the Estimate. I disagree with the Minister having the right to abolish an assembly elected by the people. No Minister should have that right or continue to retain it. If elected members fail to produce an Estimate which is sufficient to run the local authority, the public should decide who is to blame. The county manager should not be able to tell an elected body that because the Estimate or the rate being struck is insufficient to run the local authority for the following year, he will report it to the Minister.

The Minister does not go through the Estimates in detail for a particular local authority. If there is a dispute, the Minister should send an efficiency audit group to look at how the money is spent and to determine whether the members or the county manager is right. That group's report should then be published so that if there is a dispute in a council local people will know the findings of the examination carried out by the efficiency audit group. Ministers should not waive sticks and tell elected representatives they will abolish their councils unless they impose service charges, increase their rates or do whatever the county manager wants. Local authorities should be obliged to produce an annual report and an audited statement of account six months from the end of the year. Local authorities should appoint commercial auditors to carry out an annual audit. This would mean greater efficency and a sense of responsibility, and more openness at local level, which is badly needed.

I do not advocate the reintroduction of rates. This country is too small for a system of local taxation which would crucify those already paying high taxes. If the Government wishes to reform our central taxation system and produce an alternative method of funding local government, that is a different ball game. I do not accept the imposition of service charges on people already paying a considerable percentage of their income in direct income tax. The public, particularly in the Dublin area, does not see any additional services for this money. At one time in my local authority bins were collected twice a week. This has now been reduced to once a week. Roads are not properly maintained and there is bad management in terms of the general upkeep of places. If the Minister, or the Minister of State with responsibility for environmental protection, observes a local authority crew cutting grass verges or grass on roundabouts they will note cut gass left strewn over roads so that weeds grow there in a couple of months. Nobody is checking this. Local authorities preach that people should tidy their areas and enter tidy district competitions, yet they leave places in a disgraceful condition because they do not cut grass on roundabouts and verges properly. The sooner real power and responsibility is handed to locally elected representatives the better.

I am interested in the Minister's statements about the amount of money he is spending on roads. One finds nothing but potholes when travelling around the country. I do not know where the Minister gets his figures but £1.3 billion is collected each year from the motoring public through all forms of taxation, including VAT, excise duty, motor tax and registration tax. The Minister announced that he is providing £106 million for the maintenance of non-national roads. Some £34 million of that is coming from Europe. The motoring public is being ripped off. They are contributing £1.3 billion to the Exchequer, but getting back a miserable sum in terms of the maintenance and upkeep of county roads. Deputy Gerry Collins was right to attack the Minister in this regard and I will continue to attack him for his failure to address the disgraceful condition of county roads. The Minister may say he has a certain amount of money per mile, but the people are not fooled; they are driving on these potholed roads.

Deputy Barrett voted against his council spending on additional £1 million on roads in his area.

I will vote against service charges in Dún Laoghaire as long as the Government——

The Deputy should not be hyprocritical here.

What is the Minister talking about? What did I vote against?

Deputy Barrett voted against provisions put forward by his council to improve roads in his constituency.

What provisions?

Provisions in the council's estimates.

I voted against service charges and I will continue to do so as long as the Government imposes a property tax and high rates of taxation on people I represent.

The people are being ripped off in terms of what is being put back into county roads. I have repeatedly asked that each local authority be forced to produce a five year plan to upgrade roads, fill potholes and make the county road network safe. That plan should be vigorously pursued and local authorities should be provided with sufficient funds to complete the plan within five years and restore the county road structure to what it was when my party was in Government. What is happening is a disgrace.

On the amount of money invested in the national road network, I agree that safe adequate roads are a prerequisite of a modern society. I am sure the Minister is aware that if we continue to develop major national routes to the standards to which they are being developed, future maintenance costs will be enormous. While the standards applied are necessary in some places in other cases engineers are competing with their colleagues in Europe who are designing autobahnen, etc. and are designing roads to a standard which is not warranted given the present and the projected growth in population. If we continue to spend vast sums to bring major roads to a standard which is not necessary, while neglecting the county roads network in the process, we will face serious problems.

Often engineers try to solve a traffic problem by widening a road or building a new road, instead of looking at traffic management. From an environmental point of view, proper traffic management may often resolve the problem rather than knocking down buildings, widening a road or building new roads. I do not want that to be interpreted as opposition to a major road development. However, much money is being invested in the major road network at the expense of the county road network. There must be a balance and it is time the Minister addressed this serious problem. Funds collected from motor taxation should be ploughed back into road maintenance, in addition to what is provided by the Exchequer.

I was interested to hear the Minister's point about housing, particularly public housing. It is all very well to quote percentage increases but for the past seven years the Government neglected the public housing crisis. Any increase from previous years is bound to be presented as a massive increase on zero. The housing list in Dublin, and in the area I represent, in particular, is worse today than in the mid-1970s. In 1987 housing lists were practically wiped out and the maximum period anyone had to wait to be houses was six to nine months. A husband, wife and four children who cannot be housed, are now living in one bedroom.

The lack of a proper housing policy is causing untold problems, particularly in the Dublin area. Young couples find it impossible to purchase homes because of house prices. All the schemes, some of which are good, have limits set for the entire country. As land prices are greater in urban areas, the cost of housing is far greater there than in rural areas so that schemes which may work well in rural areas do not work in urban areas. That is a major problem.

On the environment and the need for a waste management policy, we should not proceed with proposals for incinerators and land fill sites, until we know exactly what type of waste management policy we will implement. I propose that we minimise the amount of waste we produce, maximise the recycling of waste and finally treat, destroy or dispose of residual waste. That is vitally important.

I have a sense of déja vuabout the presentation of the Estimates. Although I no longer serve on this committee and am no longer a spokesperson on the environment I am still deeply concerned about these issues. I regret that the emphasis of the Department of the Environment is more on local government than on environmental matters. Notwithstanding the talk about reform of local government, what we have had is reorganisation of local government and lack of reform in the financing of local government. I am sure the Minister does not like repetition but a number of things bear repeating in regard to funding of local government.

It is ironic that the Minister has before him three members of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council who are victims of reorganisation rather than people who have benefited from it. Our constituents have not benefited from reorganisation or reform. We are struggling with the reform of the new county areas from Dublin County Council. It is a sad fact that we started off coming from behind, and that we have enormous difficulties in funding basic services in our new county area. The Minister should not get away with condemning people for not wishing to pass estimates when a huge number of people in our county council areas have to pay family home tax because of property values and the shortage of land in our county area. We all know that the rate support grant is totally inadequate and have been saying so for a long time.

None of this so-called reform or reorganisation of local government dealt with the financing of local authorities. I voted for charges in the previous year's county council estimates and said that I am not opposed in principle to the idea of having a local charge for local services. However, I am opposed to double or treble taxation which is what is what we are faced with now in Dún Laoghaire. This will redound on the Government during the forthcoming European elections because it is a burning issue particularly in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area and the local constituency. Ordinary people do not want the roof over their heads taxed and that is what it boils down to for a number of them.

We have a grave financial problem in the area and it is not being addressed. It cannot be addressed by squeezing even more taxation from people who are already heavily taxed. Lack of finance means only lip-service is paid to devolution of powers to the local authorities. The Minister can give the local authorities all the power he likes, but unless he gives them a way to finance their activities, it means absolutely nothing. On housing last year I welcomed the provisions for housing, notwithstanding the political point made that an increase on a very small provision is a large percentage increase. We have a housing crisis in Dublin. We have to be aware of the difficulties encountered by young people in establshing homes. Apart from public housing, the Minister spoke about favourable interest rates and suggested that an uplift in the economy will mean that young people will be housed because they will be able to afford mortgages. That is not the case in many areas of Dublin where new house prices are enormous. This too relates to the property tax.

Just down the road from us in Killiney new modest three bedroomed semi detached houses in a not very up market part of the county cost £78,000. It is an incredible sum and the buyers are young couples in the main, struggling with the mortgages and putting all of their effort into housing themselves. We have to be aware of how young people are struggling. I know that the housing lists are very long. I am glad that the figure for start-ups improved on the target. I wonder if that can be achieved again this year. We have a very long way to go and I support the increase of allocation in that regard.

The figures on roads surprised me. The Minister seems to be very defensive today and well he might be. The points were very well made by Deputy Barrett. Ironically at a recent meeting after what seems like hundreds of years, but is probably only about 20, a major road construction project on Church Road was approved and is being implemented, perhaps next year.

This year — the Deputy should get it straight. We cannot go as slowly as the Deputy might want us to.

That is very aggressive.

The Minister has become very touchy altogether over the past year. It is ironic that the Dundrum bypass, a major necessary scheme, has been chopped completely.

That is not true.

When will we have it?

There is a problem about a compulsory purchase order that has to be resolved and when that is done I will give the go ahead.

That is a little contradictory.

Solve those little domestic problems out there and I will give the go ahead.

I will be happy to announce at the meeting on Monday of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council that the Minister is giving the go ahead for the Dundrum bypass.

Deputy Barrett wants me to spend less on those roads and more on the regional and county roads. Now Deputy Keogh wants me to spend more on those roads and less on the others.

(Interruptions.)

Is the clock stopped for these interruptions or do I have to talk through them?

The Deputy should proceed.

I an sure the Minister of State with responsibility for environmental protection works hard but I doubt that he is overburdened. The Minister said that a new waste Bill is being finalised. We have rehearsed this issue time and again over the past 18 months so a new Bill should be——

It will be one of the biggest Bills to come before the House.

——well polished up by now because we have been waiting for it for so long. I was disappointed to see under subhead D3 that grants for recycling projects are so low. The leader of my party, a former Minister of State with responsibility for environmental protection, has great concern for the environment. It seems that environmental protection has gone off the agenda to a great extent. Perhaps it is because the Minister is beavering away on the new waste Bill — I hope that is the case.

On pollution and waste disposal, we are at crisis point in Dublin in relation to landfill sites. We have great difficulties and we need a comprehensive waste Bill. A great amount of work has been done on this over five years and I cannot believe that if the priority that was supposed to have been given to this had been given, we would have to wait so long. Is there a timescale on it so that we will be able to thrash out all the issues relating to waste disposal and recycling etc.? I regret the long delay in this.

I will ask questions about remedial works on bathrooms, housing for the elderly and about the Environmental Protection Agency. I am sure we will try the Minister's patience and he is, perhaps, not as patient as he thinks.

I am greatly disappointed with these Estimates and with the Minister's presentation of them. We have entered what I can only describe as a period of lethargy in relation to the environment. About five years ago there was a great deal of enthusiasm and urgency about the environment. We had the green Presidency of the European Union; we had a glossy plan presented for the protection of the environment, another for social housing and another for roads. We were heading into the 1990s and we were going to protect the environment, enhance our infrastructure and solve the housing crisis. Somewhere along the line all of the urgency and initiative seems to have been lost.

People waiting for housing and travelling the roads are all badly served by the administration presiding over our environment and that is reflected in the Estimates before us and in the Minister's speech. We have the highest number of people in memory on housing waiting lists; roads which are in an appalling condition; increasing pollution is forcing our environment into decline, and the Government is giving an extremely lethargic performance which needs severe scrutiny.

The Government's record on housing is appalling — there are almost 30,000 people waiting for public housing. The Minister is clapping himself on the back that he is providing 3,500 house starts this year to provide housing for a little over 10 per cent of those——

Nine thousand.

I will come back to the 9,000 in a moment. I want to remind the Minister of targets set three years ago. When the plan for social housing was announced in 1991, when there were 7,000 fewer people on the housing list, it promised 5,000 lettings in its first year, 10,000 in its second year and 10,000 each year thereafter. That target has never been met. Last year the number of lettings was around 7,000; the housing list is now greater than when this Administration took office, it is 7,000 greater than when the plan for social housing was produced three years ago. People are going on the housing lists faster than the number of houses being provided. It is simply not sufficient.

I agree with a number of features of the plan for social housing. It argued that a greater emphasis should be placed on helping people to house themselves — enabling people to buy their homes. I agree with that approach but many of the proposals in the plan are simply not workable in many areas. In the shared ownership scheme there is an income limit for anyone who is not on a housing list or is not a tenant or tenant purchaser, of £12,000 to qualify for the scheme. Many of those interested in ths scheme are young couples starting who want to get a house before having children. For example, the combined income of a young woman working in a hairdressers and a young man working in a supermarket would be greater than £12,000, which would disqualify them from the scheme and unless they can find a way of getting on the housing list through the back door, they are disqualified.

If the plan for social housing is to work, there is an urgent need to review the income limits applying to it. The limits were unrealistic when introduced in 1991 and are even more unrealistic now. It is about time they were increased, especially in areas where the price of housing is high. Deputies Barrett, Keogh and I represent the same constituency where, for reasons out of the control of those living in the area, the price of housing is extremely high. Starter housing in the private sector is in the mid to high £50,000 bracket and local authority houses are selling at approximately £40,000. A house costing £25,000 in some parts of the country costs £40,000 in our area but that is not reflected in the plan for social housing which should be revised to a plan for social housing mark II. At the least, the figures, targets and income limits in the original plan should be updated.

Some £106 million has been allocated for non-national roads in the last few weeks. Of that figure, only £3.8 million was allocated to the three new Dublin county councils, less than 4 per cent of the entire allocation. Dublin has the highest usage of roads and one third of our population. However, the allocation for its roads is miserably low. Indeed, the criteria set down for the £33.6 million new scheme introduced by the Minister was designed to prevent Dublin from applying. To qualify, one would have to show it would benefit industry, tourism, fisheries, forestry, agriculture and rural development. Therefore, any road or boreen outside Dublin with a gate going into a field qualifies on the grounds that it would assist agriculture. Urban areas, especially in Dublin, will not qualify unless there is a factory or a tourist facility at the end of the road. The Government and the Minister are hostile to Dublin. The Minister has shown this in his statements on local government and in the allocation of resources.

The waste management Bill, which keeps cropping up in Ministers' scripts, has been promised more often than I can remember. This is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. A number of urgent waste problems must be addressed. What will happen to toxic waste? The Minister has dithered on that issue; and will certainly not declare his intentions before 9 June.

Deputy Gilmore should tell me what he wants to do.

No, the Minister should tell us what he wants to do. After all, he is the Minister for the Environment.

Deputy Gilmore's party wants to have it every way. What way does the Deputy want me to do it? Everyone knows my views, but they do not know those of Deputy Gilmore.

We do not; that is the problem. We are trying to find out.

What I want, and expect the Minister to produce, is a waste management plan similar to that in Denmark, which would address the reduction of waste at source——

How many incinerators in Denmark does Deputy Gilmore object to? Does the Deputy want a Danish situation?

——which would address the question of recycling and reduce the disposal of waste.

It is all right if Deputy Gilmore is in favour of the Danish programme. Then I know what he is talking about.

Instead of that, the Minister is keeping his head firmly in the sand until the hard waste disposal issues have been addressed. There is a waste disposal crisis in Dublin. All landfill dumps in Dublin have been exhausted. A landfill dump at Dunsink looks into the windows of Cappagh Hospital. It a disgrace and a health hazard and is still being used. There is also a problem in the constituency of the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment where Dublin County Council proposed a location of a landfill dump at Kill. Ask the Minister of State if he favours that proposal while the Minister is still sitting on the waste management Bill. Dublin's waste will go there if the Minister does not address this issue urgently.

There is an agenda on water which, so far, has not been brought out into the open. A number of questions were put to the Minister in the House over the last few weeks about the possible privatisation of the water supply but he skilfully avoided answering them.

That is untrue.

However, in the subtext — I will tell the Minister the truth because I have the answers in front of me — it is clear what is happening. This Minister and the Government entered into discussions with a French company to privatise our water supplies.

That is a lie and I ask the Deputy to withdraw it now.

It is in the Minister's reply, which says "various approaches"——

That is a deliberate lie.

Chairman, is the word "lie" parliamentary language?

I will call it what it is; a lie.

I will ram this issue so hard into the Minister that he will not carry it out.

Go ahead. The Deputy can print more money while he is at it.

The Minister is hurting now. In replying to Question No. 14 on 18 May, the Minister——

Quote what I said.

——said: "various approaches have been made to me and my Department by overseas companies, including some from France, about the possibility of their becoming involved in the provision of water or other environmental services". Then, the Minister refers me to the reply he gave on 4 May, where in effect, he confirms that it is his intention to involve private companies in the supply of water.

Now Deputy Gilmore is quoting me correctly and is backing off totally from his earlier statement.

It amounts to the same thing. It is similar to the tolling of roads. The Minister has an agenda——

I know of those innuendoes. I am used to dealing with them from Deputy Gilmore's party. It has never got it anywhere up to now.

——which is to toll roads.

Democratic Left has always languished in single figures in the election polls. The Deputy should play straight.

Can we please have order?

Could I have some injury time, Chairman? The Minister is hurting so badly he is squealing even louder than when Deputy Collins tackled him.

I will not take that kind of innuendo from Deputy Gilmore.

It is not innuendo——

Yes it is.

——but straight and to the point. The Minister plans to toll roads and involve private companies in the supply of water. It is time the Minister came clean on the matter and told us his plans, rather than extracting them from him while he shouts like the hurt Minister he is.

There is a proposal to start a new urban renewal scheme on 1 August 1994. I asked the Minister to announce, before 9 June, what areas are to be designated under this scheme. There is no point in waiting until after 9 June.

Consultations with local authorities.

Consultations with some of the subscribers to Fianna Fáil; 1 August is not far away. This measure was announced in the budget and I ask the Minister to announce the areas he intends to designate before the date of the European elections, rather than keep all the developers and owners of property in possible designated areas on an unnecessarily long string. I would hate any of them to have made substantial contributions to election campaigns and then find themselves disappointed when the announcements——

The contributions to my party will be made from Ireland.

There will be no use made of a machine from Germany.

The Minister has an office in the Berkeley Court and many people interested in urban renewal visit it.

Deputy Gilmore, you must conclude your remarks.

I am entitled to injury time. A report produced by Greenpeace illustrated that in Cork Harbour over a six month period there were no fewer than 1,797 breaches of water and air pollution licences involving 17 companies in the Cork harbour area. I have attempted to raise this matter with the Minister by way of a parliamentary question.

When the Minister recovers from some of the wounds I inflicted on him in my earlier contribution, he might reflect on this and dignify the committee with a reasoned reply rather than the kind of aggressive and over the top responses he made all morning.

A dose of humility would not do the Deputy any harm.

The Minister should address himself to his portfolio and provide the committee with the kind of answers it deserves rather than the glib comments it has been getting from him all morning.

We will let the people decide that in the European elections.

The committee will now embark on a question and answer session under the heading for Administration, subheads A.1. to A.7. I call on Deputy Boylan.

This is a futile exercise. For the committee to consider the Estimates today illustrates the irrelevance of the Dáil as the allocations have already been made. The most the committee may hope to do is to persuade the Minister to undertake a review of proposed activities.

Members of the committtee who are members of local authorities are aware thare is a major shortfall on every local authority. For example, Cavan County Council was advised by the Minister on numerous occasions that substantial moneys would be allocated. However, they did not materialise, rather, there was a major shortfall.

There are major problems under a number of headings, especially regarding the condition of roads.

I remind the Deputy that the committee is considering Administration.

I am aware of that.

The subject under review is Administration. The Deputy will have an opportunity to address the issue of roads.

The Minister is suggesting that substantial moneys are now available to local authorities. I was worried before attending the committee, but now I am deeply worried having heard details of the problems encountered in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. I understood that this problem only affected rural Ireland, but it now also affects urban areas.

The Minister promotes the idea of self help. To speak of this as a new idea is an insult to the people of rural areas.

It is an idea that is growing every day and the Deputy cannot stop it.

The Minister does not understand the problem because he does not listen.

I am aware that 40 schemes were completed in County Cavan and the Deputy was against every one of them.

One speaker at a time please. Deputy Boylan, I must ask you to confine your remarks to Administration.

The idea of self help emanating from the Minister and his Department is an insult to the people of rural areas. Self help is nothing new. The co-operative movement is a prime example of self help in the country for past generations, when people came together because nobody else would do it for them. The rural group water schemes are a prime example of self help, as are the pilot schemes on the roads, undertaken because of the failure of the Minister in this regard.

The issue of housing, which the Minister will not allow me to develop, is a major problem in my area.

The Deputy may not address this issue at present as it will be considered shortly.

This year the Minister will sanction repairs on one road in 20 while the rest are impassable. It will be 20 years before the Minister sanctions repairs on these roads and many people will have gone by then. That is what is happening to the moneys allocated to the Minister and I am annoyed about it.

I must have order. The committee is considering Administration at present.

There are no speakers from the Fianna Fáil Party and Labour Party. The only Deputies wishing to speak, apart from the party spokespersons, are Deputy Boylan and myself. The committee is scheduled to reconvene this afternoon, which may be unnecessary. I suggest, Chairman, that you allow Deputy Boylan and myself to make our observations and the committee could then speedily consider the Estimates, rather than taking them in specific parts. Otherwise, Deputy Boylan, myself and other speakers will discuss specific aspects of housing, roads, administration and so on. Last year the speakers were allowed the opportunity to express their viewpoints and frustrations and I ask that a similar arrangement be agreed today. In that way the committee could conclude its deliberations ahead of the time allocated.

Chairman, I am aware of the rules regarding the consideration of individual sections in the manner you propose, but Deputy Finucane's proposal is one I support if you can accommodate it.

I have no problems with Deputy Finucane's proposal.

I suggest that the committee concludes at 1.30 p.m. provided all matters have been considered.

May I suggest concluding by 1.20 p.m., as the Minister has an appointment at 1.30 p.m.?

There are specific questions regarding some of the subheads which I wish to raise, although there should be scope in the time available to do so.

I am entitled to the same input as any other Member of the committee. It is an important discussion even if the cart has been put before the horse because it is a fait accompli as far as the Minister is concerned.

The Minister's roads programme will result in the repair of one road in 20, amounting to a 20-year programme. The Fine Gael Party has promoted a five year programme. This is realistic and it gives people the hope that they will see light at the end of the tunnel.

The present roads are not acceptable. They are bad because the people of rural areas brought their farms up to EU standards. They modernised, and the system of farming changed dramatically in the late 1970s. However, the State did not match this initiative and, consequently, bulk collection, large slurry tanks and the development of pig and chicken industries, mushroom units and so on brought heavy traffic to the roads. The people were blamed and told it was their responsibility.

It is the responsibility of the State to provide the roads structure. It is wrong that a private householder should be asked to make a contribution to this and it is probably not legal. Those making this contribution should have some responsibility allowing them to ensure that if there is a problem in this respect——

It is happening in spite of the Deputy and he is aware of this.

I have been a strong promoter and member of the co-operative movement, unlike the Minister. He has failed miserably because he goes around with his head in the air and does not listen to or understand people. His officials have no idea of how to deal with the problem. I am angry at the Minister's attitude to people in rural areas striving to make a living for their families as they are entitled to the same service as those living along the main road. The point about roads has been well made and I hope the press will highlight, before the European Parliament elections, the figure of one road in 20 being repaired each year.

The quality of houses built by local authorities is excellent. Rural cottages stand out. The design and material used is first class but an insufficient number of houses is being built. We are all aware, as is the Minister, of young couples and others living in terrible conditions. In County Cavan flats are at a premium. Young married couples with one or two children live in single rooms, in which kitchenettes are sectioned off. From listening to my colleagues I know this problem occurs in Dublin and nationwide. I would like to see more rural cottages built and people attracted to rural areas by the provision of proper road structures. Country areas have the advantages of cheaper sites and healthier lifestyles.

The problem of travellers is growing and is not being tackled. I will not accept, irrespective of the conditions these unfortunate people experience, that they should be allowed to pitch camp beside the residences of those who have raised mortgages to provide homes for themselves. They are entitled to the protection of the State from anybody interfering with these locations. Unfortunately, it happens all too often that groups of itinerants move in and take over abandoned stretches of road or waste pieces of ground, on which people had plans to build houses. This is not good enough and the State must protect private householders and communities from people congregating in their areas. Some of these people are unfortunate but others are not, they are well-to-do because they engage in trade and are not liable for the rates and taxes paid by commercial traders.

The EU water quality standard for dairies is high but regional schemes are not coming on line. The group water schemes, in which people provided themselves with a water supply ten or 15 years ago, are not treated and will have to be brought up to standard. These groups are prepared to do this but are not getting sanction from the Department. The Minister is holding them in abbeyance by saying a regional scheme will be established. However, this may be ten or 15 years down the line. We must have definite commitments regarding the regional scheme and whether groups will be able to make their own provision for filtration and treatment of their water supplies. The problem is urgent. The deadline for implementing the EU standard was supposed to be 1 January 1994 but has been postponed and the standard may now have to be implemented by 1 January 1995. If this happens, many group schemes will be in trouble with people to whom they are supplying water in relation to its quality. I ask the Minister to take this on board.

With regard to urban renewal, I draw the Minister's attention to the number of towns and villages in Border areas which have sufferred dramatically from the closure of nearly all major roadways from Northern Ireland. They still had customers from the South but were cut off from their natural hinterland to the North. They lost practically half their business over the last ten or 15 years. Many businesses have closed down and many shops and buildings are derelict. There is now a need, with peace in the offing, for a major urban renewal programme along the Border from Donegal to Louth.

I am glad Deputy Boylan and I are here to give some rural balance because the debate earlier on had an urban perspective. The Minister is aware, from visiting local authorities, of their extreme frustration. Many people would not relish the job of councillor nowadays. Public representatives are being heavily criticised, particularly because of the state of the roads and there has been a great deal of focus on this issue in recent times. Whereas the residential property tax is, rightly, a pertinent issue, particularly in urban areas, county roads are a big talking point in country areas. The Minister is well aware of this as he has visited Limerick and other counties. Local communities have been galvanised into action, this is the first time I have seen County Limerick groups coming together to form a pressure group to draw attention to and seek finance for county roads. I recognise the resolution of this problem will require a great deal of money.

Successive Governments over the past ten years have tried to reduce staff numbers in local authorities. Reductions have not been made on the administration side but among road workers. Deputy Penrose made this point on a previous occasion. In County Limerick the number of road workers has been reduced from 300 to 150 over ten years. This is symptomatic of local authorities around the country. There is a terrible contradiction when one sees this situation and the numbers who are unemployed. It does not take much to bridge the gap between paying people to work on the roads and paying them unemployment assistance. Unlike ten or 15 years, ago people queue for jobs with local authorities when they become available. Surely it is possible to increase the numbers employed on the roads. Urgent fire brigade action is needed because there is a problem with water tables. Ten or 20 years ago there was a sense of pride in our roads and a worker for every ten miles. Nowadays people cannot identify specific persons. There has been mechanisation and the number of workers has been reduced. There has been a juggling of finances in recent times. The Minister for Finance lost a golden opportunity in the budget to inject a decent level of funds into county roads. The allocation was £15 million which must be divided among local authorities. Limerick County Council's share was £570,000. However, the Minister will reduce this by about £130,000. The extra £1 million for County Limerick from the Structural Funds is welcome but will be designated for specific jobs and will not resolve the problem. There is a great deal of pent-up frustration. Desperate diseases require desperate remedies.

Over the past five years, as a result of all the talk about subsidiarity in EU regulations, many extra functions have devolved to local authorities. Devolution is fine but in most cases the finance needed to properly administer devolved functions has not been provided. Who would have thought that local authorities would become responsible for the administration of abattoirs? This is an agricultural function but councils have to finance it from a smaller base. Who would have thought that councils should be responsible for the administration of courthouses? This has nothing to do with county councils, it is a Department of Justice function and we have been promised for many years that this duty would revert to the Department at some stage. The legislation on health and safety, while important, is creating many extra problems for councils with regard to its fiancing. Even the new local authorities are asked to come up with a subvention.

I regard Estimates at the end of each year as artificial because the figures which we receive are usually with regard to wages, salaries, overheads and so on, which cannot be queried. The wages and salaries burden of most councils is excessive and I wonder how much is being spent at the coalface on doing the job. Local authorities read reports of this Chamber, I will probably be criticised by my own council for this but, as I said before, it is necessary to have much more transparency on the part of councils with regard to the estimates and much more information imparted. Local authorities such as ours have a budget of over £30 million and people should be able to ask where it is being spent. That information is not being properly provided at present.

In addition, the residual amount at the end of the Estimate tends to be allocated to county roads. That amount is always lessening because of the extra pressure on local authorities in recent times. The Minister would like to see more funds being provided by local authorities for county roads which is an acceptable point of view. However, at present the money is not available for that and my council is no different from any other council.

A previous speaker mentioned travellers. In my local authority, Limerick County Council, a large number of travellers look for housing and we try to integrate them in estates. However, travellers have attendant responsibilities. If they expect to be assimilated and integrated in estates, in many cases they may have to sacrifice many of their traditions, such as keeping horses. There is a farcical situation, where stables for horses are almost created in certain local authority houses although, according to the letting agreement, one is only allowed a cat or a dog.

I would like to see travellers having a sense of responsibility with regard to wandering horses on the estates. Many good residents' associations try to improve the lot of their estates but are not helped by piebald ponies wandering around the green areas. However, where we integrate travellers in the community — and I have said this to the travellers themselves — they have responsibilities as well. If they want to be accepted by the settled community they have a responsibility in that direction.

I recently mentioned this problem in the Dáil when speaking on another Bill. In Newcastle West, where I live, we have integrated about 34 travellers in estates and it is working quite effectively. However, it could work better if travellers accepted more responsibility when they are integrated into communities. As the Minister probably knows, if only eight houses are built in a community, within nine to ten months there is a problem with travellers in caravans coming in expecting to be housed in that area. With the scheme of letting priorities and if they are around for long enough, they possibly will be housed. There should be some requirement for a person to be resident in an area for a period of time before they are entitled to a local authority house.

Dublin is not the only area which has a problem with housing. Most local authorities have problems in this regard and there is a big problem in Limerick. While one must welcome the improvement in the number of houses being built this year, it started from a very low base. We appear to be swimming against the tide because the number on the waiting list is constantly increasing. In many cases, houses have slipped from our grip.

Recently a possible reintroduction of the reconstruction grants was mentioned in the newspapers. I do not know how serious that intent is but I would like to see them introduced with certain conditions and restrictions. Part of the problem with the reconstruction grant in the past was that although it was laudable it was misused by people. Many derelict houses could be bought in which people on the local authority housing waiting lists could be housed. If there was proper restrictions that scheme could be used very positively. It could be a positive incentive.

I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by Deputy Finucane. He is correct in saying that I have a very strong grá for council workers because, apart from my father being one for 40 years, they play a very important role in the overall preservation and maintenance of our roads. The reason that our roads deteriorated in certain areas is that in the mid 1980s a voluntary redundancy scheme was available to many local authority workers and, unfortunately, many of them took it up. Fifty and 60 roadworkers in each local authority availed of the scheme and they were never replaced, which is the nub of the problem.

As pointed out, there was an old federated rural workers' agreement whereby county council workers would work within an area of six to seven miles. They were familiar with their territory and there was no such thing as quitting time of 4.30 p.m. Many of those people gave great service, if they encountered a flooding problem on their way home they did something about it. We have problems today because not enough work like that is being done with regard to the early detection of problems such as flooding, edging and so on.

No machine can replace a human being. There is a great movement towards mechanisation but nothing can replace a human being, especially in the maintenance and repair of roads. I have seen digger machines compounding a problem. They are not able to open the water cut right through and, therefore, it creates a pan and water flow back on the road. The heavy traffic causes erosion, deterioration and compacting and then the road breaks up.

We always had in the rural areas of Westmeath — and I am sure I speak for the rest of the country — five or six local authority workers, each of whom resided in the local area. They cashed their cheques there, kept the local shops open, ensured the retention of post offices, kept the numbers in schools and contributed to a vibrant local community. When those jobs disappeared so did the people. I have always opposed that and there has been a great derogation of our duty in this regard. We have ignored the local authority workers, they played an important role in this country which we have not recognised.

We will recognise it in the future because the roads will continue to deteriorate until the number of county council workers is increased to a reasonable level.

We must also ensure that local authorities are in a position to compete for major contracts which will mean that local people are employed. Under European law, if the contract is worth more than £1 million, it has to be tendered outside Ireland. We could have foreign contractors undertaking major projects which will not even enploy ten local people. We should examine the rules to allow local authorities to compete at the tendering stage and give them an equal standing which would help them gain some of those worthwhile projects.

Any cost benefit analysis would show the value of the Minister giving the goahead in this area. I tabled a motion on this point at Westmeath County Council. I asked how much 100 extra road workers would cost. This has to be assessed on a net basis although the Department of Finance say that it is not possible.

Every road worker will cost the Exchequer about £2,000 net. There will be a gain in tax and some of the workers will lose benefits or come off schemes. Others will have been in receipt of unemployment allowance or benefit. I estimate that when these factors are taken into account, the net cost is £2,000 but I will have some more information on that shortly.

The Minister for Enterprise and Employment, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Finance have to tackle this problem head on. If we could employ 150 more workers in each local authority, it would create 5,000 to 6,000 jobs. We might not get the same media coverage that a big factory with 400 to 500 jobs gets. However, it would be a welcome development in the heart of the midlands.

Housing is an area dear to my heart. I listened to Deputy Gilmore make the case for the large urban areas in Dublin. As Deputy Finucane said, there is also a problem down the country. I welcome the increased allocation which is certainly having an impact, it is important to sustain that allocation for the next seven or eight years and to increase it. In Westmeath alone there are over 300 people on the housing list. This area is vitally important.

We should ensure that we move people out of mobile homes, caravans and substandard rented accommodation. Again, a cost benefit analysis would show that people in rented accommodation often have to go to their community welfare officer for a rent subsidy. When one takes account of this, it would be more beneficial overall to devote more resources to house building.

There is also a benefit in employment terms because every house built creates at least two full-time jobs and some part-time jobs. This year that would be about 8,000 to 9,000 jobs in the construction industry which is important to many small builders who are in a position to tender for those projects. The Minister's proposals have had a welcome impact on the area of employment. However, it is only a start and I will continue to fight for increased resources.

The house improvement grants should be reintroduced. I support the Minister in that regard and I agree it must be a more focused scheme. House improvement grants should not be reintroduced to allow people to build massive conservatories while others are living in virtually derelict houses. The scheme should allow large families with six or seven children living in a two bedroom house to build a necessary extra bedroom. In rural areas a large number of houses do not have bathrooms and toilets.

Many houses have rotten windows and doors and the scheme must be focused on replacing them. The last scheme was widespread and cost about £180 million. I appreciate that financial constraints would prevent the reintroduction of a scheme of that nature. However, I would advocate the return of a house improvement grant with a more focused nature.

I come from the area of Ballynacarrigy where one in four are unemployed, which is hard to credit in a small rural area. We have consistently sought the approval of the Mullingar regional water supply, north western low level section. I even raised it on the Adjournment in the Dáil on 8 March last.

The proposal was submitted to the Minister's Department by Westmeath County Council on 20 June 1991 and my understanding is that it would cost £2.3 million. The area is bereft of industrial employment or development and the absence of a water supply hinders the best efforts of any local community group to initiate developments which would bring employment to this large geographical area. The immediate approval of this scheme will remove the biggest barrier to siting projects in our area.

I have spoken to some industries and they perceive the present situation as being a major impediment to anybody locating there. Thre is no mains water supply in this area which includes the large hinterland of Ballynacarrigy, Ballymore and Moyvore. It is unusual as Ballymore village has an excellent sewerage system and yet there is no mains water supply.

The quality and quantity of the water supply in this area needs to be improved. The source is vulnerable as it is a river which can, occasionally, be subject to foreign matter. Just three weeks ago I could not use the water. That is how serious the problem is. The supply is variable and there are occasional breaches of drinking water regulations as set down by EU legislation.

The system for which tender approval is now sought is designed for a future population of over 3,500. It is the one the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks which I noted carefully. It would allow for future development as well as permitting the expansion of other towns and villages in the area which has been hindered by the absence of a water supply. It will also provide the conditions necessary for the development of agriculture and industry in this area. This would be a major boost to the possibility of employment in this area.

Many functions are devolved to local authorities but they are not getting the finance necessary to administer them. Deputy Finucane referred to some of them. The Abattoirs Act is a major millstone around the necks of local authorities and we require money from the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Food and the Department of Finance to operate the system properly. The legislation regarding dogs and rent regulations also cause problems.

The situation regarding courthouses is a major anomaly. As a member of the legal profession, I find it extraordinary that the Department of the Environment and local authorities have to carry the cost of repairing, maintaining and upgrading courthouses. It surely should be the function of the Department of Justice. The Minister should discuss this with his colleague and suggest that courthouses should not come within the remit of local authorities. As it stands, they are finding it difficult to get the necessary finance and maintain the current level of services.

I welcome the initiatives the Minister announced today and I ask him to consider in particular the water supply scheme which I brought to his attention.

I want to move to the Estimates.

May I ask a procedural question? There have been statements or questions from three speakers apart from the main speakers but we have not had an opportunity to respond. I presume it is our turn to respond at this stage.

There have been various questions. Does the Deputy want to put a quick question, as he is going through the Vote?

I am dealing with subheads A.1. to A. 7.

Members are allowed to wander over the various subheads.

We were quite happy to allow Deputies who wanted to make a broad statement to do so. Surely the same should apply to the Minister of State?

We have plenty of time.

I did not realise that the Minister of State wanted to make a state of the nation speech.

I want to reply to some of the questions raised by Deputies.

I thought the Minister of State would do that when we got to the subheads.

A Deputy

We changed the procedure at the request of the Deputy's colleagues.

The Deputy's colleague proposed it.

The Minister should not be so arrogant.

I will not allow the Deputy to walk over me.

Who is in the Chair?

Order, please. The Minister of State without interruption.

I have never seen such an arrogant group of Ministers in my life.

A number of issues were raised by Members which have very little to do with the Estimates. We simply got electioneering speeches. We heard very little from the three members of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and the other speakers on the Estimates. However, a number of points were raised, despite the electioneering.

It is not electioneering. They are factual matters.

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Finucane, please allow the Minister of State to proceed. If you have any questions, I am sure he will answer them. You have already spoken.

The point was made by a number of speakers that there is a housing crisis, which I acknowledge. We are dealing with that crisis in a way that will, at the end of a four year period, have reduced the waiting lists to a level where people will not be required to be on a list for more than a year. That is the object of the exercise.

Between 1991 and 1993, approximately 5,000 families were added to the waiting lists and 58 per cent of that increase was in the category of unaffordable accommodation. This involved people who lived in adequate but unaffordable accommodation. In 1993, we paid £30.2 million through the Department of Social Welfare to community welfare officers in rent subsidies for people in unaffordable accommodation. That is not the best use of funds but one of the requirements to qualify for rent subsidy is that you must apply for council housing, regardless of whether you want it. If you do not, you do not get the rent subsidy. Of the 5,000 increase in the waiting lists in that period, 58 per cent was made up of people in this category. This makes something of a nonsense——

Rubbish, utter rubbish.

A Deputy

Hundreds of people who apply for houses want them.

These are the facts.

(Interruptions.)

People, who have not previously applied, are required to apply for housing, regardless of whether they want it. Of the additional 5,000 families, over 2,500 were in the unaffordable category.

We are providing homes for 9,000 families under various aspects of the plan for social housing. The letting of new dwellings is approximately one third of the total provision, nationally and locally. There is wide appreciation and acceptance by people and local authorities of the fact that this level of provision will deal with the existing waiting lists in the relatively short term. It is insufficient and if it was sufficient, we would provide 28,000 units in one year which would clear the list. That is not a possibility. Within the lifetime of this Government, the people now on waiting lists will have been housed. However, new people will also come on stream.

Deputy Gilmore mentioned other aspects of the plan for social housing. We are at an advanced stage of a major review of that plan. One of the points that the Deputy raised was the income limits for shared ownership and other loans. That will be dealt with in mark two of the plan for social housing. All other aspects of the plan are being reviewed, updated and changed in the light of experience of the use of these plans. Apart from the direct build part of the programme, which is very expensive, the other aspects of the plan will continue to make a major contribution to the problem of housing people.

A point was made about the difficulty of getting mortgages. One speaker mentioned the cost of a £40,000 mortgage. Since this Government came into office in March 1993, the cost of repaying a £40,000 mortgage has reduced by £176 a month.

No, that was the currency crisis.

(Interruptions.)

The Minister is entitled to say what he wishes. If the Deputy wishes to raise a question later, he can do so.

The benefit to a £40,000 mortgage holder is £176 a month.

A Deputy

A year.

If it was the other way around, the Deputy would blame us.

The Opposition would not build any houses.

We cleared the housing list between 1982 and 1987.

Our Minister cleared it. We always had a commitment to housing. The Deputy's party would build nothing and leave people on the side of the road.

While 19,000 private houses were built last year, we expect a substantial increase in that level of provision in the private sector this year. We have also introduced minimum standards for rented private tenancies. These will be applied more vigorously when we also have registration which we expect by the end of the year to ensure that people are not living in substandard tenancies. There is an appreciation of that. We have introduced minimum standards and we will bring in registration. I am sure there will be general support for those matters.

A number of Deputies raised the issue of the settlement of the travelling community. We have provided either housing or fully serviced halting sites or caravan parks for two-thirds of all travellers. There is a residual number of approximately 1,200 families who do not have accommodation and who live on the side of the road in dreadful conditions. For a society that considers itself Christian, that is a disgrace.

I have inserted a requirement in the 1994 housing programme for some local authorities that unless they give me their plans for the provision of halting sites for travellers they have identified within their area and their responsibility, I will not sanction their housing programmes. I am glad that we have received a very positive response from local authorities. One point is most pertinent to the Estimates in that I will not accept proposals from local authorities where a hardstand for a caravan costs £100,000. We are getting bills at that level from local authorities.

I will not sanction the spending of taxpayers' money at that level for the provision of a stand for a caravan. It is just not on. At present, sites for a family bay cost more than the average cost of providing a house. My Department provides 100 per cent of the funding but I warn local authorities that I wll not tolerate an abuse of public funds in this area. The selection of sites, which often leads to high costs, must be done with a view to getting value for money since it is public money being spent. I am satisfied that if we can now rapidly progress the proposals received from local authorities we will break the back of the problem of travellers living in conditions that everyone says are a disgrace.

Deputy Boylan raised a point about urban renewal but you cannot have an incentive scheme that applies to everybody because then there would be no incentive for a particular area. The general objective of the urban renewal scheme is to attract people back to derelict areas. The case has been made, particularly in the west, for a pilot scheme — which has been accepted by the Government — for secondary towns. This is because of the draw from secondary towns to major uban centres by virtue of the existence of urban renewal. The question of how that might operate is being examined but the new scheme will be coming in on 1 August 1994. There is a necessity to have the areas to which the scheme will apply named before that but by the end of June we expect to have the areas nominated to give property owners and local authorities time to be up and running by 1 August.

The provision of isolated cottages was also raised and Members should be aware that the form of housing within their own area is a matter for local authorities. The policy of the Department would encourage rural authorities to build greater numbers of isolated cottages with the objective of retaining people in rural areas. We have also changed the shared ownership scheme and there is no longer a requirement on people moving from urban areas to rural areas to pay a £1,000 deposit. Quite a number of people are taking up that offer moving from cities to rural areas, mainly to the west. Those were the main points I needed to address and, as said earlier, if Members want to raise any other specific questions I will be happy to deal with them.

Before we move to the various subheads, does anybody wish to raise a specific question?

In relation to subhead A.3., the cost has gone up from £833,000 to £993,000 to cover expenses such as advertising, environmental promotion, staff training, etc. How does this compare with subhead A. 7. where you have consultancy projects? What is the difference between the two subheads and what are the main items of expenditure in relation to them?

What effect does the procedural change make on the timetable? Were we supposed to break now?

It was agreed, in my absence, that we would finish by 1.30 p.m. and that the Minister will come in at 1.20 p.m.

May I ask a specific question then on housing? It is in relation to the bathrooms and——

Sorry, Deputy, housing comes under subhead B.

In your absence we——

Yes, but we are now taking subhead group A. 1. to A. 7. The next group we will come to is B. 1 to B. 4 which includes housing.

The main increase in A. 3 is provision for £100,000 for advertising in relation to the register of electors and other franchise matters, and environmental promotion. Subhead A.7., consultancy services, would cover IT strategy, an ESRI study, notifications under directives, review and outlook for the construction industry, a recycling study on packaging, computerisation of local authority environmental services, and the ESRI environmental policy research centre. They are all small amounts for the kind of matters which Deputy Barrett would not really have difficulty with.

What provision has been made for holding referenda? We expected that there would be a referendum on divorce in 1994. Has provision been made in the Estimates for holding that referendum?

It is not normal for my Department to make provision for referenda. That is a central charge made by the Department of Finance when necessary.

Is there any provision for setting up the electoral commission? Are there any costs attached to that?

It does not cost much. As you probably know, the meetings are not very frequent. Under the Electoral Bill, which I will be introducing shortly, statutory provision is being made for the establishment of a commission on a permanent basis so that it should not arise for the future. I understand that the costs associated with it are minimal.

Are there any further questions regarding group A.1. to A.7? If not we will move on to subhead B.1 to B.4. Deputy Gilmore said he had a question with regard to housing which comes under this group.

I welcome the announcement by the Minister of State that there will be a review of the plan for social housing. Will the Minister indicate when the review will be completed and when it will be announced? Will he comment on the problem in relation to the refurbishment of local authority dwellings and the provision of bathrooms because there is an in-between category of housing that needs to be addressed? At present, if a dwelling is on the list for refurbishment it cannot be provided with a bathroom. Consequently, although young families living in old housing stock might be willing to wait a few years for total refurbishment, they need a bathroom now. The problem is that if the local authority provides them with a bathroom it cannot subsequently include them on the list for refurbishment. Will the Minister see if it is possible to introduce some kind of an in-between category whereby it might be possible in some dwellings to design the provision of the bathroom in such a way that it would harmonise with a subsequent complete refurbishment of the dwelling? According to some local authority architects I have spoken to, this would be possible.

Sorry, Minister. It might help if we take the full list of questions so that there will be no duplication.

I would like to address myself first to the scheme for repairs in lieu of social housing. It is a scheme that has good potential in rural areas but two problems arise in connection with it. The first is that the maximum cost allowed for any one house is £10,000 and in some cases this proves to be too low. It is recognised that when local authorities do jobs they tend to do them very thoroughly but that causes problems, particularly on islands where building costs are 20 per cent to 40 per cent higher. Are there any plans to raise that limit?

The second point is that in relation to the increased allocation for ordinary housing Galway County Council, for example, this year got a provision of £110,000. Has there been a match off between the number of applications likely to be passed in each county, and, therefore, taken of the housing list, and the money provided under that scheme?

Everybody up to now has talked about the issue of rural resettlement in terms of taking native born Dubliners — people like myself — and putting them down in the west. However, we must look at another type of rural resettlement. In my area there are two local authorities — Galway Corporation and Galway County Council. A large number of people in Galway city who are, for example, unemployed and living in flats would like to have the opportunity of returning to their native areas such as Rosmuc, Carna and others. At present, however, the corporation would benefit if one family did so while the county council would have one fewer house. There must be provision to accommodate one local authority taking a family on transfer from another local authority, thus freeing a house in the latter authority. Perhaps a credit could be given to the receiving local authority. That might be a complicated way of putting it but I am sure the Minister of State understands my point.

Refurbishment of local authority houses is urgently needed. We must look at the issue of refurbishment of large complexes of flats — as in Galway — in which, no matter how well they are refurbished, nobody wants to live. Large amounts of money are involved and we should examine the possibility of selling such complexes for student housing or other purposes and using the proceeds of the sale and money earmarked for refurbishment to provide houses. There ia a cycle of continuous refurbishment of these complexes because the tenants are transient — they do not want to be there and have no interest in maintaining them. Most of my constituents would rather not be there. They are constantly begging to get out of them.

Everybody would like to see the income limits in the shared ownership scheme increased. They are too low for the current cost of living, particularly when joint incomes are involved.

I support Deputy Ó Cuív's point about the works in lieu scheme. It is a good scheme. However, the £10,000 limit after which approval must be sought from the Department of the Environment is too low.

There is no difficulty getting it.

Nevertheless, it is too low. It is better to enable local authorities to go ahead with the work without having to go through the procedure of seeking approval which causes delay, no matter how quickly it is given. The figure should be increased to about £15,000 or £16,000 to allow works to continue.

I also support the call for an increase in income limits in the shared ownership scheme.

My question is the same as that asked by Deputy Gilmore. Will the provision of bathrooms in local authority housing be completed by 1998? Is the programme on schedule?

Yes. Some people refuse to avail of them. About 600 out of 3,000 have refused.

Is the number that high?

Yes. There is another 600 in the category to which Deputy Gilmore referred.

I welcome the doubling of the allocation for the task force on special housing aids for the elderly. That is a tremendous scheme administered by the health boards and FÁS supplies the labour. How is the funding distributed to health boards? Is it on a per capita basis or divided equally between the health boards?

I do not know the situation in other local authorities but I am not happy with how the problem of homelessness is dealt with in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. It is crazy to refer people, who might have young children, from the Dún Laoghaire area to the Eastern Health Board in Charles Street in the city centre. These people are offered bed and breakfast or hostel accommodation in the city centre. There are social problems attached to this policy. It is beyond me why they cannot be dealt with in the county area and offered accommodation to overcome the short term difficulty. Could the Minister inquire about how this scheme is operating?

I have heard the Minister say many times that he is pleased with the situation at present. However, I have come across cases which are not being dealt with properly. The local authorities are washing their hands of homeless persons and sending them to the health boards who place them in bed and breakfast accommodation and ultimately they are given rented accommodation for which we pay enormous subsidies. I am not exaggerating when I say that in my area one could not get a one bedroom flat for less than £75 per week and that would involve sharing a bathroom. Prices are appalling and they have increased because rent subsidies are given by the health boards. Landlords are increasing rents because they know they will get rent subsidy on the higher rent. Eventually the health boards pay the landlords the rent they were seeking in the first place. The landlords need not worry about collecting the balance. The rents are increased but they are increased for everybody else as well. The situation in Dún Laoghaire is causing major problems.

I also cannot understand the ongoing disputes with the health boards about mortgage subsidies. I have three cases on my desk at present of people who are about to be evicted because they lost their jobs and cannot afford their mortgages. The mortgages are high because house prices are high. These people will become homeless. They will end up being subsidised in bed and breakfast accommodation and in rented accommodation. Ultimately, and we hope shortly, they will be given a new local authority house. It seems crazy that we can stand by and allow people to be evicted because they fall behind in their mortgage repayments when the State must pick up the tab when they are evicted. There appears to be a reluctance to get involved early to prevent this problem.

Deputy Gilmore asked about the review. It is at an advanced stage and I hope that in the near future we will be able to make announcements regarding its outcome.

The provision for a bathroom programme has been increased from £2.5 million to £4 million. If a dwelling is on a list for refurbishment whereby three units will be changed into two units a bathroom cannot be provided now. However, if that is not the case there is no reason the local authority cannot provide a bathroom now and complete the refurbishment later. There would be no reason for delay in the case of low cost housing although nearly all low cost housing has bathrooms. It would mainly apply to older or pre-1940s housing.

The problem is in flats where the units are being made larger, perhaps by changing three units into two. Where does one put the bathroom in the existing flat without having to destroy that work in the near future? Otherwise, if the dwelling has not been given a high priority for refurbishment by the local authority, it could make a case to me and I would consider it. If the local authority wishes to instal bathrooms and says it can do it I will not have a difficulty with that. However, we would not want to instal a new bathroom and have to wreck it in two years or 18 months.

Deputy Ó Cuív talked about the works in lieu scheme. There is no absolute maximum on the work to be done in lieu. At present a local authority can spend a maximum of £10,000 without reference to the Department. Authorities regularly exceed that amount and extra money will be sanctioned if we are satisfied it is good value. The limit will be reviewed in the plan for social housing and I expect it will be increased.

As to the rural resettlement scheme, there is no reason someone from Galway could not receive benefits from the non-deposit shared ownership scheme to move to Connemara. If a local authority house was returend to Galway Corporation I am sure the two local authorities involved could come to a positive arrangement to credit each other for new starts from the allocation.

Equally, if 100 houses are built in Galway city or Galway county as the case may be, I would expect a reduction in the housing lists. We have to take account of new people coming on the housing lists continually so one will not have a net reduction of 100.

Deputy Ó Cuív also mentioned flat refurbishment. Our experience is that where flats are refurbished they do not have to be tackled again. New management and maintenance structures have been put in place as part of the refurbishment scheme, which involves the community in the management and maintenance of the estates, not just their own flats but their communities. They get assistance for the management and maintenance. There are now waiting lists of applicants specifying they want to move into refurbished blocks of flats. I recently announced the refurbishment of Rahoon in the Deputy's city. That has been on the waiting list for a long time and I am glad it can go ahead as soon as the necessary tender documents are prepared. A pilot scheme has been completed in Ballymun and there is now a waiting list for the refurbished block.

I dealt with the limits on loans as a number of Deputies raised that matter. It will be considered in the review of the plan and I expect an announcement as soon as possible.

About 3,000 local authority tenancies do not have bathrooms. Obviously these are older tenancies; all newer accommodation has bathrooms. About 600 of those without bathrooms are on the refurbishment list and another 600 of those tenants do not want bathrooms and will not accept them. Unless we forcibly enter the flats and build bathrooms we cannot do anything about that. Those flats will come on stream gradually as tenancies change. Usually older people do not want a bathroom built because of the disruption involved. Fewer than 2,000 have to be completed and, at the current level of provision, they will be finished in time for the application of standards to local authorities in 1998.

Under the task force for the elderly scheme, money is distributed to the health boards on the basis of the needs demonstrated by the boards and the categories of people in need in their areas. We have £4 million this year and we distributed £3 million of that. The amount havs been enhanced since last year. We have monitored how the scheme has progressed in certain areas and on that basis held back some money which will be distributed later where the money has been taken up positively. Whoever does the most work will receive a bonus later in the year. If the money is not being used it will be taken away from the health board involved and will not qualify for an additional amount.

The amount spent on bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless people is not as large as stated. We spent £250,000 on this last year and £30 million on rent subsidy to private landlords. Therefore, the bed and breakfast issue is not a huge part of the housing problem.

Charles Street is an emergency response centre. The vast majority of those who become homeless do not suddenly lose their homes in the middle of the night or without notice. Those who got notice should be catered for by local authority and health board officials. There is no reason such people should be referred to Charles Street. Only those from the city centre or in an emergency should be sent there.

Will the Minister write to local authorities specifying this? They are automatically sending everyone to Charles Street and not dealing with the problem at local level.

I take that point. Charles Street used to open for two hours per day, five days a week. It is now open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. five days a week and there is an emergency "freefone" service from 5 p.m. to 1 a.m. every day, including weekends. There is now additional cover. The worst time is probably about 12 o'clock midnight, when males return home drunk, creating problems of violence and of women and children being thrown on the streets. There is also provision for transport where necessary. That is being used well and is considered effective.

Given the co-operation of the local authorities and the health boards, there is no need for anyone to sleep rough. Provision will be made on the day they present themselves. If they do not present themselves we are dependent on outreach organisations such as Simon and Focus Point to convince people to do so. In Dublin city about 30 people, nearly all males, will not present; there is also a small number who do present themselves but are so violent or disturbed they cannot be accommodated in a normal hostel with other people.

I do not wish to minimise or take away from the problem but there is not a large number of people involved. When we do a count of the homeless, everyone living in the Iveagh Hostel is counted. That hostel is now high grade accommodation since its refurbishment. Some people have lived there for 30 years without moving and with no intention of moving. That is their permanent home but they are counted as homeless because they live in a hostel described as temporary accommodation.

The Department has no function in relation to mortgage subsidy. Health boards have to make judgments as to who should receive the subsidy. I agree with the Deputy that it is nonsense not to intervene at the starting point a person has to go through the cycle again. Since it is a health board matter it might be better to ask the Department of Health.

This seems extraordinary because if a health board does not act the Department of the Environment has the problem.

This is another occasion where another Department acts or does not act and we have to deal with the consequences.

Since this is a housing matter, why does the health board have a say as to who gets the mortgage or rent subsidy?

It is paid under the supplementary welfare allowances and the health boards are responsible for the administration of those payments. They put the arrangements in place and pay the money. They have to make the judgment about whether someone should receive it.

There are other circumstances, such as people who do not receive the dole because they live at home. Because they do not get money they come to Dublin, perhaps homeless and are then our responsibility. We are trying to minimise the effects of such measures.

I agree with Deputy Barrett on this matter. We would get better value for public money if all the functions relating to housing, including the mortgage subsidy, rent allowance and the provisions for the homeless, were consolidated in a single housing system. Perhaps the local authority should become the housing agency with all the responsibilities.

Certain situations repeat themselves. I know a family renting a local authority house, which has been sold a number of times. The house is now for sale, therefore they must leave it. The family suggested they would like to buy it under the shared ownership scheme. However, they were told by the local authority they would not qualify for the scheme because of their income. Yet, the amount of money paid to them in rent allowance is more than it would cost to allow them to become part purchasers of the house under the shared ownership scheme. This is a crazy situation. It costs the State more money to keep people in private rented accommodation than it would cost to enable them to purchase the house they want or to become local authority tenants.

Various types of subsidies are payable to people to assist them with housing, including subsidies for rich people who want to buy expensive houses. These subsidies are payable by the taxpayer and it may be worthwhile to examine if they are all justifiable. A small number of houses are repossessed because people cannot or will not pay. Some people who get loans have no intention of paying, they may have a free house for a year because procedures must be gone through before repossession. It would be irresponsible of a local authority to give a loan to someone without examining the ability to repay it because this could create another problem. I accept the Deputy's point that another subsidy is being paid which could be bigger than that. We must ensure the person is living in the house.

Do the Members want to continue and try to finish the Estimate, or do they want to adjourn? It was agreed to adjourn, but I think we should finish our business. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We move on to subheads C.1. to C.4. As Members do not want to ask any questions, we will continue with subheads D.1. to D.4.

Subhead D.4. shows a 55 per cent increase for the Environmental Protection Agency. Is its headquarters in Johnstown Castle?

We decided to locate in Johnstown Castle, but there were legal and other costs associated with the refurbishment of the castle to suit the agency's needs. This meant we had to make some changes, but we have good temporary accommodation at present. The £4.5 million increase this year is to ensure that the agency has sufficient staff to carry out its functions in an efficient way. At present, it has approximately 102 staff.

Where are they located?

There are over 30 in Wexford, the remainder are in Dublin and in regional laboratories in Kilkenny, Limerick, Monaghan, Cork and other places.

Does anyone wish to speak on subhead E, Rate Support Grant?

When will the Minister address the issue of local authority funding? Many reports have been issued about this and the Taoiseach announced he would reintroduce rates. How soon will we know the Government's policy on local authority funding?

We are dealing with an Estimate today which provides for almost the entire £850 million to go directly to local authorities from the State. This will help local authorities this year with housing. I accept there is still a great need for unparalleled activity both in terms of the physical work and the variety of schemes in which local authorities are involved in regard to our national, county and regional roads. Notwithstanding existing difficulties, they will have activities in both schemes this year unmatched by any previous attempts by local authorities. On the capital side — and I mentioned sewage and water schemes — the allocation from the Government to local authorities is high and we are meeting our commitments under EU directives, etc. I will continue working to try to increase this because there are many needs to be met.

On the revenue side, there is a myth at local level that an untapped resource is waiting to be opened to give local authorities access to greater funds. Deputy Barrett referred to this and expressed his concern about the efficiency, costs and programmes of local authorities and the need for transparency. We must remember that if we talk about additional funds for local authorities we are talking about additional taxation. There is no scope for borrowing, therefore we are talking about additional taxation. I accept there are responsibilities, and Deputy Finucane referred to this in a solid contribution.

We are now on calmer waters because the tempers which flared on all sides have cooled down and we have sorted out the referee. Responsibilities have been imposed on local authorities and these involve additional costs which are not being met in the way we would like. I have undertaken a review as to how I can help and I publicly stated this recently in Limerick. I accept there are tight revenue positions on the current side for local authorities, but I do not accept the story emanating from every local authority that it is possible to give large resources to local authorities without imposing additional taxation. I referred to this on numerous occasions and I said there was no scope for it in terms of our competitiveness and high taxation levels. However, I am reviewing ways to help their finances within the national constraints, including greater efficiency, to which Deputy Barrett referred, charges or whatever other earning revenue capacity local authorities have.

The fiscal report, commissioned a number of years ago, suggests — in relation to rates support grants — that approximately half the local authorities are winning, while the other half are losing. Unfortunately — although there are problems with some aspects of how that report was carried out — at least five or six of those local authorities, which the report suggests should have their rates support grant reduced, do not have a financial position or base which would enable any Minister for the Environment to implement that report's suggestions.

I do not want to prolong the discussion, but the myth to which the Minister referred originated with the promise, after the abolition of domestic rates in 1978, that the shortfall would be made up from central funds. However, this has never happened. As the Minister said, there is a problem in relation to funding local authorities. We are dealing with subhead E, Grants in Relief of Rates.

It would appear that the Minister has abandoned the report of the fiscal studies group. Is he not going to do anything about this? Will he allow local authorities to paddle their own canoe? Will we get a statement of Government policy in regard to how local authorities should be funded? I got correspondence recently — and I am sure other members did — from the Chamber of Commerce of Ireland expressing concern about the proportion of local authority funding coming from commercial rates. Will there be a Government policy on how much of the revenue side should come from central funds, from commercial and industrial rates and charges for local services? The Minister of State promised six months ago that charges for local services would be abolished within two years. Perhaps he was jumping the gun in announcing the Government policy.

In one of his better moments.

We are confused and we would like this cleared up.

The fiscal report on the distribution of rates has been abandoned and I gave some reasons for this earlier.

Did the Minister tell the Taoiseach about this?

The income raised locally by local authorities is approximately £400 million, while the balance is paid by the Exchequer and loans. At present up to 25 per cent of total expenditure is raised by local authorities, the rest being produced by the taxpayer. It is not fair to count the rate support grant as if it was all that was given to local authorities by the State. All other capital grants must be raised from the taxpayer before they are given to local authorities to enable them to carry out their functions on roads, sanitary services, the environment and housing. They all come out of the national kitty — the taxpayers' pocket.

There are number of things we can do to help local authorities discharge their functions and to help them on the current side. I already touched on some, which I have under review. Deputy Barrett, both here and in the Dáil, touched on his fears in regard to efficiency and I also touched on that in relation to roads. Next week I will visit a local authority which is starting one hundred miles of foundation and improvement work and black topping with its allocation this year. Another local authority with the same allocation is talking about letting men go. That is the difference. There are some efficient local authorities which are able to do a lot more work with the same money.

Many public representatives believe the only way to solve these problems is to get more money from somewhere — I made it clear that that would be the taxpayer. There is no scope for phenomenal improvements in this area, although there is scope for more improvements in efficiency — including recoupment to local authorities in areas where they discharge responsibilities which are primarily not theirs and need to be transferred to the appropriate Departments — and increases on the capital side, which would enable them to discharge their functions and responsibilities in relation to roads, housing, the environment, water, sewage, etc.

If he looks at this year's Estimate against the past couple of years, one can see there has been no lethargy in the Department of the Environment because under every heading this Government has succeeded in increasing our allocation in rate support and in all of the other capital headings to local authorities. The only difference is that there may be more emphasis on a wider range of activities in environment than before. I regard roads as an essential part of our environment while housing is an integral part of the environment. Urban renewal is an essential part of how we put new life into our cities. Our sanitary services programmes, which have been extended, are also essential. It is not as if local authorities were bereft or left aside and were not getting support from the Government. Their activities and the schemes throughout the country are proof of that. We cannot ask the taxpayers to produce solutions to these problems overnight, out of the same pocket which it is coming from at present.

I will not get into an argument about that again, other than to say there is too much confusion. I would like to hear Minister's response to the positive proposals, which I have put forward on two or three occasions. I would like to know if they are not workable or viable. I tabled amendments on Committee Stage of the Local Government Bill, which were not dealt with. One cannot allow the situation to drift on. There is inefficiency.

I was a member of a local authority when rates were in place. At that time elected members were seen to be responsible for moneys because they were striking rates and imposing the charge on the public. The day rates were abolished the atmosphere in local authorities changed, the manager more or less became responsible for money, while elected representatives tried to get more money for projects. As a result, any time one puts down a question in a local authority now, the stock answer is there is no money.

Local authorities do not have money to fix anything. I got a two page letter from an engineer explaining why he could not replace a bulb in a laneway used by old people. It cost more money to write that nonsense than it would replace the bulb. I questioned that at this year's Estimates meeting. The Minister wanted to know why I did not vote for service charges. I will give him a perfect example. There are three swimming pools in my area, two of which are run by community based organisations, and the subvention in each case is £15,000. The swimming pool run directly by the local authority, which is often closed, costs approximately £164,000. I asked the manager not to ask me to vote for service charges when that sort of thing is going on. I will not vote for service charges when money is wasted.

There are areas where this could be tackled. As long as the Minister retains power to abolish local authorities for not striking rates, this will continue. Each local authority should be answerable to the public, who elected them, as to how they raise the money they spend each year. With respect to the Minister, whether commercial auditors are appointed to carry out an annual audit on the day — like every other business — and to produce an audited statement of accounts, people should be answerable for how and why money is spent in a certain way.

It is terrible to meet people who ask why the local authority has no money to do X, Y and Z, when they see money wasted. That is what is happening and that is why people resent paying water charges. They look around and see grass verges which have not been cut properly and grass thrown on the roads. That sort of thing cannot be allowed to continue. There is no point complaining about this if we are not going to do something positive about it. We must go forward with new ideas. I do not mind whether they are mine or anybody else's as long as they improve the situation. Unless we do something, the problem will get worse.

Deputy Barrett also made these comments when debating Bills in the House. There are two sides to that story. It would be unfair to lambaste local authorities as if they were not carrying out good functions but clearly there are areas in which the inefficiency of which the Deputy spoke remains.

This year, for the very first time in relation to the disbursal of road funds, particularly in the county and regional roads, we have asked for specific information in relation to how these moneys are spent. That kind of information was not available to my Department and has not been sought up to now but it is being sought on this occasion. We are also introducing audit schemes on a pilot basis from which we can better evaluate what is going on in a number of local authorties and from which we could develop a profile of best practices which we could apply or seek to apply right across the board, but these are not primarily matters on a day to day basis for the Minister for the Environment.

These are matters which have to be decided at local level in terms of how to screen what is happening in Estimates or whatever and very often, there is reluctance to deal with these questions at local level. I will give whatever assistance I can on the basis of information obtained from local authorities and the best profile of practices which I hope to produce by the end of this year, so that every local authority — or every member of a local authority — would be aware of his or her powers, what is happening in other areas and make comparisons on expenditure so that when decisions are made on Estimates, they can be made on a proper basis.

When we talk about giving more money to local authorities, it is very clearly emerging that it should only be undertaken on the basis of ensuring that the disbursal of the available funds is done in the most efficient way possible. Twice this year I saw a slowly driven tractor carrying a trailer and a road worker filling potholes from it. I do not want to cast aspersions on road workers because they do a great job, in each case the man was obviously carrying out the job as he was told to. However, that is not the way to use funds for maintenance of our county roads. I am not saying that it happens everywhere, but on two occasions this year I have seen it. When we finally resolve funding matters, in so far as we can within all the other competing considerations, it is very important to make sure that we have the best possible administration and transparency and more involvement by the community in how that is achieved.

We will move on the subheads F.1 to F.12. Are there any questions?

It seems to be very difficult to get money in relation to worthwhile refurbishment plans for swimming pools. I know that Westmeath County Council submitted one some time ago and we have had no positive response in relation to this matter. We should be able to fund small things like the provision of hoists for wheelchair users for swimming pools fairly quickly because these facilities are important. Is there any possibility of extra money being made available for applications in regard to the renovation of swimming pools, particularly Westmeath Councy Council in relation to Mullingar swimming pool?

We are very committed to existing schemes and there is not much scope, as the Deputy can see from the total amount, for any major extensions. The Deputy will also appreciate that a number of years ago the funds for this purpose were considerably greater than today. A survey was carried out, because these funds mainly come from the lottery surplus, as to what the public felt about the disbursal of the lottery surplus funds and approximately 71 per cent said they wanted it spent on the health services. As a result, a great part of the lottery surplus is spent in the health services, primarily in the mental and physically handicapped services. There is public goodwill, a great need to continue the policy of helping in that area and to go as far as we can to remedy problems affecting people in our community who must surmount enormous difficulties. Over the next couple of years, with all the independent economic commentators telling us that the economy is on the up and up, that we will have between 4 per cent and 5 per cent growth rate for the next four or five years, that the national finances are being handled in an extremely prudent and exceptionally good way, there will be more money around to help the Deputy.

When will the £0.5 million for people with disabilities be disbursed? I presume there has been a large application for that.

We have already been in touch with the local authorities and a number of them have made submissions. We hope to be able to respond within the next few weeks but I know that the Deputy is anxious that I would do that before 9 June.

Do not forget the Cheshire Home in Newcastle West, Minister.

I may not be able to reach that. On the urban renewal schemes, there has been no lack of will on our part to try to finalise that scheme and Deputy Gilmore has seen the phenomenal numbers of schemes coming on stream in Dublin. It has meant there has been an extraordinary interest in the new scheme. The files are coming from local authorities and their scope has been out of all proportions to what we anticipated. Making the selection process is really a much more difficult task now than we would have otherwise judged it to be at the time the scheme was announced.

In regard to the grant for the provision and renovation of swimming pools, how much is renovation and how much is provision of new pools?

All, with the exception of Cavan, are renovation.

When was the last time an allocation was made from the national lottery for amenity projects and recreational facilities? When will the next one be made?

I answered that question in the House during Parliamentary Questions and in a number of other public fora. The last allocation was made in 1991. In 1992 moneys were still allocated but the schemes had not proceeded or been completed so, at the latter end of 1993 I sent a circular to local authorities to tell me whether they would proceed with those schemes for which moneys had been allocated in 1991 or to terminate the scheme. The allocation terminated in 1991 but actual payment of that money ended at the end of 1993.

When will the next one be?

Not before the local elections.

It is an extremely stable Government but we may still have to go to the electorate just before that time.

(Interruptions.)

: That is the mid-term review.

The Deputy said 1998. Do not get upset. He was very calm and serene for the last half an hour. I am doing my best to facilitate him.

I have been listening to your preachings on the state of the economy.

Do you have a relevant question?

Yes. The Minister's backbenchers have their tongues hanging out to get the letters they got before, a week before the rest of us, telling us what community groups in each constituency would get funds from the national lottery. The Minister should put them out of their misery. When will there be another allocation? The national lottery makes a profit of £70 million a year. The last allocation which, from memory, was in 1991 was £4.5 million. The Minister might correct me on that. We were told then that there would be an allocation each year. There has been no allocation for amenity projects. The Minister for Justice is spending £25 million providing prisons when it would be better spent providing community facilities if the Minister opened up this purse that he is keeping for whenever the next general election will be called.

I will make it clear again for Deputy Gilmore, who on an odd occasion can become aggressive and ignore the realities, that I have no funds at my disposal for this purpose. The Government decided on foot of strong public views that the lottery surplus funds, in the main, should go to the health services and primarily towards the services for persons with handicaps. That is what happens to those funds at present. There may well be opportunities in the future but that will largely depend on the resources available. I have no funds at present nor any plans to have any.

Under subhead G, with regard to driving tests and fees there is an increase of £600,000. Have the fees for driving tests been increased dramatically? From time to time I receive complaints about the inconsistency that appears to arise in testing. I have to be careful not to imply that all driver testers are rude to people, but it can be offputting for someone to get into a car and find that the tester is rude or does not put them at their ease — I have had the experience on one occasion. What are they trying to prove? We are trying to prove that people when left on their own can go on the roads and drive safely.

Are any guidelines issued with regard to the standards expected? What is the interviewing process for the people who are selected to carry out the tests? Is the Minister satisfied that overall there is a consistent pattern in the numbers who pass? Is the failure rate higher in one area as against another? Is there any procedure for questioning these matters so that we can be satisfied that, by and large, there is a consistent pattern and that we are careful as to who is selected to carry out the tests?

There was no increase this year in driving test charges. An increase was made at the begining of last year. I have no doubt that the general standard of application to work, due regard for the public and integrity of those carrying out the driving tests, is of a high order, and that the interviewing and commissioning that takes place in giving those jobs, as Deputy Barrett knows, is good and reliable. Nonetheless, I would take a serious view of any particular complaint that there was rudeness or anything else which would have a detrimental effect on an individual facing a driving test. We all have different personalities and what might not affect you or me could affect somebody else badly.

As far as the averages are concerned one could say that, generally, across the country the results are consistent. When there are deviations from that it can be acocunted for by local matters. For example, some driving schools are much better than others and present drivers for tests with a high success rate. I have had some complaints which we are dealing with to make sure that there is greater uniformity, in so far as that is possible having regard to local situations. If there were any individual circumstances in which matters arose, such as the Deputy has raised, I would like to be made aware of them.

Obviously, there will be some complaints when people fail. In all areas of activity where there are examinations there will be differences of view. Some people fail, some succeed on the first time and others try a number of times. I have spoken to a number of people who have failed three of four times and on almost every occasion they have admitted that they made more mistakes the second and third time than the first time, and that can get in on people a little. We need to help cultivate a better understanding so that a person does not disimprove after the first time because they feel under a certain amount of pressure.

Having said that, it is a strict and onerous task; decisions have to be taken as to whether the applicant is good or not and that is an onerous responsbility. I am confident that the discharge of that task is done in a fair and consistent manner. We are investigating one or two abuses and I want to see an end to them. I want to see co-operation between the system and the public and, for the greater part, that is what we get.

I want to repeat that I am not implying that all testers are rude, or that they are not doing their job. I am anxious that there should be an awareness of the nature of the job and that the personality of the person doing it is important. Views have been expressed to me about the inconsistency in the pass rate. I am disappointed that something is not being done in relation to driving instructors, that there is not some recognition given to the more professional driving instructor. That should also be reflected in insurance premiums so that people could show that they have gone to the trouble of taking driving instruction through a recognised school of some quality. That would be particularly useful for young people. There is no incentive to take driving instruction before the driving test and we should be giving an incentive.

Insurance for younger people is a concern for the community as a whole. It is associated with the overall cost of premia where, for the first time, claims match premia. That makes it a high risk business and we would like to see claims reduced. That can be done with greater road safety measures and we have not been found wanting in doing that. We get great support from the National Safety Council, which is in turn supported by the Irish Insurance Federation. We are working toward a voluntary code for those instructors who meet a higher standard. We will try to make progress with that a little more quickly.

Does the Minister see any moves in the Department of the Environment to do something about the driving schools? A person can set up a driving school with no previous qualifications and give instruction to people. If we are to tighten up the area we should tackle that problem. I am pleased that there is an increase in the amount of money for the National Safety Council. The national school warden service is effective and it would be remiss of me, coming from Newcastlewest, if I did not congratulate the local boys' school for winning the all Ireland awards. I am invited to its function during the week.

Well done. That is excellent.

My son is part of the school team, so I am doubly delighted.

Congratulations to the Deputy's son. The Deputy asked if I saw "any moves in the Department". With all the accusations that have been made today I would not be the person who would notice those moves if they were taking place. It does not just relate to driving instructors and driving schools. We have to find ways of getting accreditation through voluntary or statutory codes. I have committed myself to this important area and I told Deputy Barrett that I will see how progress can be made on this matter.

Deputy Gilmore suggested I was avoiding the proper enforcing of environmental legislation which is emphatically not the case. As Deputy Gilmore knows, I have put in place the Environmental Protection Agency to provide a better system of regulation and monitoring, especially of complex industries. That agency is up and running, staff have been provided and accommodation is being sorted out. There has been a long standing arrangement, as Deputy Gilmore knows, for the non-intervention of successive Ministers for the Environment in planning control matters. That is as it should be. However, I am obviously anxious to see the agency carry out its functions in the most efficient way possible.

I can get things wrong occasionally, but Deputy Gilmore went totally overboard by saying that Dublin could not qualify for the new grants for regional and or that I deliberately set it out in this way.

There is discrimination against Dublin.

Dublin qualified for £2 million this year. The schemes I am starting next year, as Deputy Keogh knows, will cost £7.3 million. These expensive schemes will form 22 per cent of my total grant allowance. There is no question of me not being interested in Dublin — far from it. If one drives down the quays when driving the northern route to the airport, one can see ten cranes working on the developments there. We will shortly be looking after the access to the port. I have proved, not in words, but in actions and funds, that Dublin will get its fair share.

We will be watching the Minister closely.

Deputy Keogh referred to waste. The Deputy is right; it is a major concern for Dublin. I have tried more than anyone else to focus people's opinions on this matter. I held a conference in Trinity College earlier this year to get consensus on solving the problem. A waste Bill will be introduced, but one should not get the impression that this Bill, however long it has been sought, will be the remedy for all ills. One must consider where these services are to be provided. No waste Bill can decide that; it has to be decided at local level, with a little more confidence from those who are locally elected, to ensure these provisions are made. They are not matters for central Government. They have to be decided——

The Minister is talking about the Bill.

I hope the Minister faces up to his responsibilities.

This is not the first time Deputy Keogh has tried to suggest her leader was the only person interested in the environment. I have expanded environmental thinking on every front. It is now more than just referring to the environment. We have put our money where our mouth is in all our services and that is what really counts.

Deputy Barrett's contribution was a treadmill of confusion. The Deputy's Front Bench spokesperson on Finance, Deputy Yates, accused us of being a "tax and spend" Government. In his contribution, Deputy Barrett proposed to spend much more money on everything. Deputy Barrett said he wanted all funds, including the revenue from VAT and excise, spent on roads.

That is untrue.

If the Deputy did not say that, he was proposing to make savage cuts in health and education to transfer those moneys to roads.

I had an enjoyable afternoon, although we tried to sort each other out earlier on. As usual, I failed to succeed in convincing my colleagues that both the Minister of State and I are doing a good job. We do not need a verdict on this from these Deputies, but from the people in a few years' time. If the current polls are anything to go by, we are confident of being in office for a good while.

I thank you, Chairman, your staff and Brendan Kenneally for your co-operation. I also thank my staff for assisting us in our work. Despite the rigours, I also thank my colleagues across the floor who constantly have to make their case for elections and who take advantage of me, knowing that I am a vulnerable, easygoing, relaxed and lethargic type of person and that they can score points off me all the time; they have won again.

That concludes the Select Committee's consideration of the Estimate in respect of the Department of the Environment. I thank the Minister, the Ministers of State, their officials and the members of the Select Committee for a valuable and informative debate. I apologise that I had to leave to do my duty in another place at 11.30 a.m., although I heard the committee was mannerly while I was away.

The Select Committee adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 27 May 1994.

Top
Share