I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, to the committee. The Minister will make a statement and I will then call a spokesperson from Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. I will be flexible, but I ask speakers to confine themselves initially to five minutes.
Vote 25: Environment (Revised Estimate)
This is the first time I have presented the annual Estimates for the Department of the Environment to the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs. I assure the Chairman and Members of my co-operation and that of my officials in assisting the committee in all facets of its work. In the months to come, I will come before the committee with legislation on waste, local government charges and on aspects of electoral law. There will be other legislation which may be taken in plenary session in the Dáil Chamber.
Today, the focus is on my Department's expenditure programmes and I look forward to a constructive debate. 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 allocations are provided. I will be joined by Deputy McManus, Minister of State at the Department of the Environment with special responsibility for housing and urban renewal. We will be happy to assist the committee in any way on any questions which may arise subsequently.
This year my Department will spend almost £900 million and about 90 per cent of this will flow to local authorities in grants and subsidies. This constitutes a considerable proportion of overall local authority spending which amounts to approximately £1.85 billion on essential infrastructural, environmental, amenity and community services. A by-product of this spending is the provision of direct employment to almost 30,000 people, and the underpinning of many jobs in the private sector.
I am conscious that this opening statement cannot address all the spending areas for which I am responsible. I have opted, therefore, to touch on the major services, such as housing, roads and sanitary services. Since this is my first time to present the Environment Estimate I also wish to say something about wider environmental issues and the local government system itself. I hope to have an opportunity of commenting on other services and activities as Members may request and as the debate progresses.
This year has seen two major developments with regard to housing. In the first instance, there has been an increase of almost 30 per cent in the resources allocated to housing in the public capital programme, up to £279 million to almost £358 million this year. This will allow the annual target of 7,000 social housing starts, set in the policy agreement A Government of Renewal to be met in 1995, the Government’s first full year in office.
The allocation of over £154 million for the local authority housing construction programme this year will allow local authorities to make 3,500 "starts" and to acquire a further 400 houses during 1995. In addition, increased funding will allow for approximaely 1,200 starts in the voluntary housing sector. The £60 million available to shared ownership should permit 1,500 families to avail of this route to home ownership. Taken together, the output from the local authority and voluntary programmes, relettings from casual vacancies and the smaller complementary schemes, should enable local authorities to cater for over 9,500 household this year and 10,000 households next year. This will constitute an increase of 60 per cent in social housing provision since 1992; it should significantly improve general access to housing, and shorten the time on waiting lists for those in need of rehousing.
Turning to private housing, the climate for home ownership and for the house building sector continues to be very positive. Last year was significant, with an all time record level of over 23,500 private completions, a 22 per cent increase on the previous year's output. Figures for the first quarter of 1995 indicate a further strong increase of one third in total private house completions compared to the same period last year which represents a significant increase on last year's record. This, with buoyant figures for new house registrations and loan approvals and the growth in output under the local authority and social housing schemes that I have already outlined, suggest that we should well be heading for the best year for overall housing completions this year in the history of the State. This remarkably strong housing market is underpinned by the general upturn in the economy, the plentiful supply in mortgage finance and relatively low interest rates.
The second major development on the housing front this year is the publication of Social Housing—The Way Ahead, our policy document for the social housing and private rented sectors. This review overlooks the developments since the Plan for Social Housingin 1991 and, as the title suggests, it charts the way ahead over the coming period. I do not propose to go through the detailed measures and the many improvements and new schemes contained in the document as Members will have had the opportunity to study them in detail, but I want briefly to refer to a few general points of special importance.
Policies aimed at counteracting social segregation have begun to make an impact, and we are determined that they will continue to apply these provisions to the local authority and voluntary housing programmes. Smaller housing schemes which help to develop better integrated communities, and the option of purchasing existing houses must continue to be promoted. Even with the expansion of the building programme to 3,500 "starts" this year, there can be no justification for reverting to the sprawling estates of the past, far from the existing community and facilities.
Housing conditions for travelling families are still unsatisfactory in many instances and we all must continue to focus on those. At national level we provide the resources to finance suitable accommodation, whether by way of integrated housing or group housing or halting sites, depending on the preferences in local circumstances. Local authorities, as housing authorities, are responsible for delivering the accommodation required. While I readily recognise the difficulties, I must once again call on all local authorities, elected members and officials, to take a hard look at progress, or sometimes the lack of it, and consider how we can all do better. I know that settled communities often have anxieties about the provisions of accommodation of travellers in their areas, but many of these anxieties can be overcome by local discussion and consultation and the provision of small, well designed sites in suitable locations. The fact that voluntary bodies may now avail of the capital assistance and rental subsidy schemes to provide halting sites and new housing for travellers opens up possibilities of providing a useful supplement in some areas, at least, to the existing efforts of local authorities.
The policy document Social Housing—The Way Ahead lists ten priority areas for action in dealing with homelessness and I wish to refer briefly to two. In the first instance, we relied too heavily in the past on bed and breakfast accommodation which is unsatisfactory for many of the households for which we cater. The bed and breakfast option may be necessary to meet emergencies but we want to see it used only as a last resort, and even then only on a short term basis. More emergency accommodation to suit different types of household is, therefore, needed. We have invited voluntary bodies in partnership with local authorities to bring forward proposals to meet this need, especially in the major population centres where the problem is most acute.
The second point is in respect of the shortage of suitable accommodation in which homeless people can make the transition from homelessness to a more normal pattern of life. Here again, voluntary bodies and local authorities have been asked to bring forward suitable proposals for the kind of transitional facilities which will assist in breaking the vicious cycle of homelessness.
Turning to the issue of roads, the creation of transport infrastructure networks capable of meeting our national development needs is a major priority of national and EU investment policies. The importance of developing our internal and access transport and infrastructure, especially the road network, has been recognised and supported by almost every major analysis and review of the Irish economy of recent times. The Government's commitment to developing our road network is reflected in the total 1995 Estimate provision of over £317 million for road maintenance and improvement work.
Over the period of the EU Operational Programme for Transport, 1994-1999, £2.6 billion will be invested in an integrated transport infrastructure programme covering roads, rail, ports and airports. Within this programme the development of a modern road network will continue to receive high priority, with total investments of over £1.2 billion earmarked for the network over the period of the programme.
The provision of a safe and efficient network of national roads is one of the vital elements necessary to assist our industry and our services to compete for business and to preserve and expand employment in the process. The ESRI has said that investment in major road improvements should continue as the top priority, accounting for the bulk of all funds under any future transport infrastructure programme and the policy we are pursuing reflects this.
Within the 1995 provision for national roads, £146 million has been allocated by the National Roads Authority for major road improvement schemes such as the recently opened Longford bypass, the Northern Cross Route in Dublin, the River Lee tunnel and the Sligo-Collooney bypass. The balance of capital expenditure on national roads will be applied to smaller projects, such as minor alignments, strengthening works and pavement improvements. In addition, £23 million is being provided through the Estimate for maintenance work on national roads. Overall, the 1995 provision for national roads is up £20 million on last year's total and will allow the NRA to progress towards completing the development of the national primary network, on target, by the year 2005.
In recognition of the poor condition on non-national roads in many areas and the further damage sustained because of bad weather last year, an increased overall allocation of almost £103 million was provided for these roads in the budget. This provision is marginally less than in 1994. However, as Deputies will be aware, the funds provided in that year were significantly boosted by a large allocation from the receipts of the tax amnesty which, as emphasised at the time, could not be repeated. Leaving aside this exceptional allocation, the 1995 grants are significantly up on the underlying 1994 provision and on the allocation of any previous year. Based on the adopted Estimates, local authorities will provide almost £59 million from their own resources in 1995 for work on non-national roads. This should bring the combined provision to almost £162 million, sufficient to finance a very substantial programme of works this year.
To allow for the development of a longer-term strategy, the Government has asked for a report on the overall state of county roads, including their maintenance and other needs. When the report has been fully considered, the aim will be put in place a coherent and integrated plan to bring the network up to an acceptable standard over a period of years. I have already made it clear, however, that there are no simple or easy answers to this problem. We are dealing with a network of almost 88,000 kilometres of regional and county roads, or nearly 55,000 miles, most of which was never designed or constructed to take the volume or weight of traffic it is carrying.
There is a growing appreciation that filling pot holes by traditional means and other short term remedial measures can amount to a waste of resources. On the other hand, the cost of a full-scale restoration programme is likely to be very great and will present all of us at central and local levels with some difficult policy choices, which I intend to bring to the Government and to the Oireachtas in due course.
Before addressing the question of overall environment policy, I want to refer to the water and sanitary services programme which, of all our environmental efforts, continues to utilise the greatest share of Exchequer resources. The programme is a major component in our efforts to protect and enhance the environment and, in recognition of this, investment this year on these programmes will be £107 million.
Construction work on 25 substantial projects was completed last year and the results are now evident throughout rural and urban Ireland. Major sewerage works have been commissioned in Ennis, Monaghan town, Kanturk, Newbliss, Longford and Athlone and the advantages of enhanced water supplies are now evident in Nenagh, Bailie-borough, Killybegs and Bangor Erris.
I readily acknowledge the importance of the substantial funding provided by the European Union for this programme. In 1995 alone, assistance from various funding instruments will be of the order of £66 million. The Cohesion Fund is, and will continue to be, the main source of EU support. Already, funding for 26 projects has been agreed, projects which, over the next few years, will replace or upgrade existing facilities and ensure compliance with European standards. Most of our major cities and towns will benefit from this investment, including Dublin, Galway, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Wexford, Tuam, Clonmel, Dundalk and Drogheda. Additional applications are being examined at European level and we are told that further approvals are imminent.
The 1995 capital provision will enable construction work to continue on priority schemes, including new and improved sewerage schemes to serve Dún Laoghaire, Mitchelstown, Bray, New Ross, Robertstown, Greystones and Enniscorthy. Progress will also be maintained on water supply schemes at Leixlip serving north County Dublin, Lough Mask serving the Ballinrobe and Claremorris areas, south Leitrim, Limerick, Ballyjamesduff, Tuam and Templemore.
Investment of over £9 million in small public and group schemes is included in this year's provision. These programmes bring widespread benefits and represent superb value for money. Group schemes are unique to this country and supply good quality water in rural areas while small public schemes redress deficiencies in water supply and sewage treatment and can protect important environmental assets such as groundwater supplies.
The effects of the water and sewerage programmes are far reaching. It services sustainable industrial development and increases employment opportunities and potential in different ways. Quality and quantity of water supply are prerequisities for many industries, including agri-food, pharmaceuticals, fisheries and tourism. On the other hand, sewage treatment infrastructure is necessary to ensure that job creation will not take place at the expense of our relatively pollution free environment. Our clean rivers, seas and lakes are in themselves major tourist attractions and have the potential to underpin substantial employment growth in this sector. In essence, the sanitary services programme builds capacity into the economy in a manner consistent with protecting and enhancing our natural environment.
Water services infrastructure is not the only means by which we seek to protect the environment. This Government has strong policies for the management of economic growth and development but we also recognise that for development to be sustainable, environmental protection must constitute an integral part of the development process. The national sustainable development strategy which is in the course of preparation will incorporate the Government's commitment to integrate environmental considerations into all policy areas. Its objectives will be to ensure that consideration for the environment is integral to the planning and management of industrial and energy requirements, transport, agriculture, tourism and our whole pattern of production.
Sustainable development was defined in the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development as "development which meets the needs of the present without compromising that ability of future generations to meet their own needs". As such, it involves striking a balance between current development needs and the natural environment, the natural capital on which our present and future well-being depends. Sustainable development is both dynamic and durable. It is about innovative expansion rather than a shut down of economic activity. We will seek to achieve more growth with less natural resource exploitation, energy use and waste production.
The value and potential of this new development model has been recognised in the establishment earlier this year of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Sustainable Development. The committee, in prospect of the national strategy, is now working to identify the measures to maximise the advantage of environmentally sustainable sectoral policies and to increase Ireland's share of the growing world market for environmental goods and services.
Work towards the national sustainable development strategy is centred in my Department, but sustainable development must become the business of everyone. I recently published guidelines entitled "Local Authorities and Sustainable Development” to stimulate informed debate and prompt ideas for carrying forward local agenda 21 initiatives at local government level. Like the work of the Joint Oireachtas Committee, this will intensify awareness of environment and development issues at all levels of Government and society, complementing and consolidating our work on the national strategy.
I adverted at the beginning to the sheer scale of spending by local authorities — over £1.8 billion in the current year. This in itself highlights the need for an efficient system of local government which provides the best possible return to the taxpayer, a high quality of service to the public, an active role in environmental protection and improvement and maximum accountability and democratic representation.
The policy agreement A Government of Renewal signposts the future direction of local government by providing that local empowerment of people is the overall objective of reform. We want to ensure that arrangements are put in place to return the greatest number of opportunities to an effective and accountable local administration with a fair, equitable and reasonable system of funding. We want a phased programme of devolution and a widening of the role of local government with more respect for the principle of subsidiarity. We want the local authority to become the focus for working through local partnerships involving local community-based groupings, voluntary bodies, the private sector and public agencies, with a particular focus on co-ordinating the efforts of existing groups. Finally, we want the role of regional authorities to be expanded in various ways.
The commitments in the Government programme have potentially far-reaching implications, both in terms of their implementation and outcomes. The outcome cannot simply be a redesign of boundaries, structures, functions or systems. These may well arise, not as ends in themelves but rather as means towards the deeper objectives of fundamental renewal of local democracy and redefinition of the relationship between central and local government.
It is useful, therefore, to reflect on the longer-term benefits which we seek to obtain from local government reform. For instance, local empowerment can promote greater local initiative and mitigate the culture of dependency which looks to central Government for scapegoats and solutions to every problem. A more balanced and mature relationship between central and local government with greater local autonomy would allow central Government to concentrate on its proper role of developing the overall framework of policy and law and maintaining strategic oversight of the system. In a vibrant system of local government, the elected councils would be in a better position to provide community leadership and play a more active and visible role in directing their councils' affairs in the formulation of policy and strategy and in general oversight of performance. A more locally focused approach should lead to the development of a more service-based and consumer conscious approach in which matters are arranged around the needs and priorities of the public with a customer oriented rather than organisatonal focus.
The immediate priority in the current phase of the reform programme, the reorganisation of town local government, on which action is already under way. The local government reorganisation commission will report by January next on a number of key issues, such as the classification, functions, financing, staffing, other general organisation arrangements, and the relationships between town and county authorities. In addition, an initiative on devolution has already been signalled by the Taoiseach and I expect a more detailed announcement on this quite soon.
On the important question of local finance I have taken steps to set in train the professional study promised in the Programme for Government. I will be announcing the details in a few weeks.
In the time available I am not permitted to do more than touch on many of the functions and services for which my Department is responsible but, with the assistance of the Minister of State, I am happy to deal with any issues Members may wish to raise. I am confident the 1995 Estimate will enable my Department and the local authorities to continue to provide a range of services necessary for social and economic progress and to protect and enhance our environment for this and future generations.
Thank you, Minister. I will call the spokesperson for Fianna Fáil and then the spokesperson for the Progressive Democrats. I will give flexibility to the first speakers; thereafter I ask contributors to confine themselves to either questions or five minute contributions.
I will make general remarks on the Minister's statement and I welcome him to his first Estimates meeting before this committee as Minister for the Environment; he was before another committee as Minister for Health. I have no great difficulty with most of the Estimate and I welcome some elements. I will make general comments and then refer to the Estimates in general and specific terms later by way of questions.
I see a contradiction in the Department of the Environment in that, notwithstanding its name, it is responsible for most infrastructural development. In an era of sustainable development it is reasonable to say this is the proper Department to have responsibility for infrastructure. However, there is a basic contradiction in that, because of this responsibility, the Department tends to focus on ultimate solutions rather than preventive ones. The Minister has rightly outlined a fantastic array of schemes — roads, water, sewerage, etc., — on which billions of pounds have been spent over the past ten years and will be spent over the next five; but the focus is on tackling the problem after it has been created rather than resolving and managing problems before they occur.
The Minister regards environmental protection as so important that he has taken responsibility for it himself; previously we had Ministers of State for environmental protection. This is good, I accept the Minister's bona fides and it raises the profile of environmental protection but I wonder if it is the best policy. There is a danger that as the Minister is busy in many other areas, because of the all-embracing size of the Department, environmental protection may get less attention than it needs and deserves.
This is the same problem we had before, that everything concerned with the environment is compartmentalised, rather than being all-pervasive across other Departments, as the Minister and I would wish. For example, one Minister terminates a scheme to protect the environment while another says the environment is at the top of the Government's agenda. In taking responsibility for environmental protection the Minister may give it less attention than he should, given all the areas he must look after.
The Minister mentioned local government reform and referred to the Taoiseach's significant statement on devolution, which was first promised last February. I would hate to think a significant statement on devolution to local authorities would be made after the Dáil rises. I ask the Minister to use his influence with the Taoiseach to ensure such a statement is made in the House at a time when it can be properly debated, because it is important and long overdue. I will refer to it later.
The areas of local government reform have been outlined for some time but the consultants on local government finances have not yet been appointed. The committee on town councils is sitting and the matter is under study but we seem to have little other than committees, reports, consultants, etc.
As I said before, the options for local authority finance have been stated and reported on by 12 different bodies, organisations and individuals. A political decision is needed but if we are honest, we will admit there will be no decision on local government financing until after the next election, which may not take place until 1997. Therefore, we have two years to wait before anything happens.
I am glad the Minister outlined to some extent his views on local government and he has spoken about it before, but what we seem to have so far is consultants, commissions and committees. There is no evidence of a philosophy, other than in what the Minister said today and at conferences. The philosophy, must be laid down. The system we have at present is neither local nor government, which is a phrase I and others have used before. The Minister has a job on his hands to make the system both local and governing. From my point of view as Fianna Fáil spokesperson, if he moves in that direction he has my total support.
Too many things are done at central level which could be done locally. Too many schemes are being administered by bodies and organisations which should be administered by local authorities. Too much of the money coming from Europe is bypassing what is supposed to be a local government system.
Some 100 years after the foundation of the local government system we should now make up our minds whether we want it. With all due respects to the Minister's officials, it is my belief that central Government's Civil Service does not want a system of local government. I know they have no right of reply here but I am sure they will talk to me at some other stage.
Root and branch reform is necessary to have a system that is accountable, where local public representatives have power but also responsibilities they can no longer shirk. The system had gone so badly wrong in some respects — although I am not condemning it out of hand because there are many positive aspects to it — that it will take some time to get new people into the system and to remotivate those already there, to provide us with real leadership at local level. It is something we must do quickly.
I have already made some suggestions to improve local government finances, a thorny issue to which there is no easy solution. Channelling more of the Euro money to local authorities through regional councils might provide better value.
The messing in relation to service charges and limiting local authorities' powers has done enormous damage to the concept most people subscribe to; that one must pay for services. I hope it has not damaged it irreparably. There are contradictions in relation to charges. On the one hand the Minister is making it more difficult for local authorities to collect charges, while on the other in a statement on the Waste Bill, he said people will have to pay for things. These contradictory signals should be clarified.
Another sticky problem is the issue of travellers. There is probably no county which does not have a problem in siting travellers and providing facilities for them. I note what the Minister says, but money will not solve this problem and neither will centralised decisions. The necessary policy directions should be given to local authorities as a matter of urgency. It is a local problem with an obvious national dimension which will have to be solved locally but within a national framework.
There is no difficulty in getting money from the Department for housing and halting sites, but there is a difficulty for local communities where a halting site is to be located, because caravans will be parked on the side of the road creating another problem. It is fine to provide the money, as the Minister and his Department have done, but an overall national framework is required also.
The Minister should expedite publication of the report as well as putting forward policy directions to protect the rights of both communities — travellers and settled. I am sure the committee in which the Minister of State was involved will come out with a balanced solution which should be tackled straight away.
I have already spoken at length on roads and I am glad the Minister acknowledges that less money was provided this year than last year, although the amnesty is mentioned. In a year when Government spending is set to increase by about 10 per cent, even with adjustments, the fact that money for non-national roads has been reduced, particularly after the bad winter weather, shows a serious lack of judgment by the Government.
Non-national roads are in a serious condition in various counties, particularly those surrounding Dublin and counties such as Monaghan and Cavan which my colleague Deputy O'Hanlon will talk about later. It will take more than money to solve these problems. The Minister has commissioned a report, but a report was commissioned a few years ago which said it would take £1.1 billion to bring non-national roads up to a reasonable level. Updating that estimate, it would now probably cost about £1.5 billion to undertake the same work, but that kind of money is not there.
Difficult policy decisions must be taken forthwith rather than being sidelined any longer. The choice is either to provide extra funding or to reduce the extent of the public road network. However, there is another possible option; local authorities should tell us whether we are getting value for the money we are spending. Has the Minister ever considered an in-depth audit of what is being done by local authoriities? Why is there such a discrepancy between the amounts being spent per kilometre on non-national roads?
I welcome the increased provision for the water and sewerage schemes mentioned although I would enter a caveat about the end of pipe solutions rather than other ones. I congratulate the Minister for the group water scheme which was in the pipeline for some time. That group water scheme is one ideal scheme for the devolution of powers. I am a member of Meath County Council which was one of the local authorities to which it was devolved for some time as a pilot scheme.
It is ridiculous that a person applying to a local authority to join a group water scheme must have his application passed on to the Department of the Environment which then contacts the local authority to see that everything is in order before it contacts the group scheme to allow it go ahead with the work. The whole rigmarole one has to go through is like a merry-go-around and it is ridiculous. The local authority should be allowed to do it under supervision including spot checks.
The Minister spoke about making the local government sytem more consumer friendly and consumer driven, but he will have a major task on his hands to achieve that. Local authority staff are very courteous and efficient and do their job diligently but there is a culture of secrecy in local authorities that is absolutely amazing. Some of them do not even let the public into their public meetings, although that is down to the members rather than the officials. It is almost impossible to get information in various areas from local authorities. One of the major improvements would be to open up their systems to the public and provide a lot more information than they do.
In general, I welcome the Estimates. When we start examining them in detail, I would be pleased to hear the Minister inform us of the cuts he will implement to make up the £77 million. It seems a little pointless discussing the Estimates in detail if they are going to be cut on Friday.
That is next year's Estimates.
I too welcome the Minister to the debate on his first Environment Estimate. In overall terms, the Estimate is fairly sound and encouraging for developments next year. It is also my first time tackling the Environment Estimate. When I got my copy of the Estimate yesterday evening, the first thing that struck me was the vast amount of areas that must be covered by the Department of the Environment. This was adverted to by the Minister at the end of his speech and it was also mentioned by the Fianna Fáil spokesperson, Deputy Noel Dempsey.
I am more convinced now than ever that the time has come when the responsibilities currently handled by the Department of the Environment must be broken up into two separate Government Departments. We ought to have a department of environmental protection and a department of local government. It could be done without any additional cost because this Government has set up no fewer than 17 junior Ministries, with all the trappings that go with them. If we had fewer junior Ministries and could divide the current Department of the Environment into two separate Departments with two separate Cabinet Ministers, we would be in a much better position to deal with the enormous demands that are placed on both wings of the Department of the Environment at present. There is the matter of environmental protection which is a huge item and there is the matter of local government with housing, roads, the spending of EU Structural Funds, the monitoring of that spending, dealing with electoral law and all the other items. There is plenty of scope for two separate Departments.
I will begin with the department of environmental protection and the key role I see it playing. In the Culliton report on industrial development until the end of the century, it was made quite clear from the start that environmental protection was not a matter of choice but a matter of survival. If we are not seen to be leading the field in matters of environmental protection, our future in maintaining existing jobs, generating new jobs and encouraging inward investment will be very difficult indeed. We will have an uphill battle and a real struggle if we do not lead the field in matters of environmental protection. Mr. Culliton was quite clear about that. That is how important environmental protection is to the economy, to job creation and the whole social fabric of the country.
It would be far better if we had one Minister with that responsibility alone and no other. I say this with great respect for the current Minister's youth, energy and single-mindedness in dealing with his Department, as he demonstrated when he was Minister for Health. Nevertheless, there is only so much responsibility that any one Minister or Department should be expected to take and I would be vastly encouraged if I saw the Department broken into two now.
We all know how important environmental protection is, yet new conflicts seem to emerge every day when very badly needed development seems to run on a collision course with people who are concerned about the environment. That is happening as we speak in respect of the proposed timber factory with 350 badly needed jobs for Leitrim. We are running into conflict between environmentalists and those who want to promote the project. Leitrim is a county which badly needs to protect its environment. It is a county of attractive waterways, which are important to its tourism industry. It also needs the timber factory, so why should we have a conflict? Conflict arose because there was not sufficient consultation before the site was settled upon.
The Environmental Protection Agency should play a key role in making sure that consultation takes place before a planning application is lodged so that all concerns are taken on board and all are seen to be of equal importance. We should begin to do what other countries are doing. We should put in place "scoping" regulations whereby all interested parties — the developer, the planning authority, representatives of residents' groups and representatives of major environmental organisations — would come together to seek agreement on the scope of any project and on the suitable siting for it before a planning application is lodged.
That needs to be made happen in this country but it will only happen if somebody is in the driving seat who has no other responsibility except keeping the environmental agenda fully at the forefront of every stage at the development of a project from its incipient stages. That is one of the reasons we ought to have a separate Minister with responsibility for environmental development.
What happened in the case of Mullaghmore, for example, where millions of pounds worth of taxpayers' money stands to go to waste in a black hole is a matter of scandal to taxpayers. There was not sufficient consultation before the project proceeded. We can no longer afford to go down that road where one group of motivated and well-meaning people are making one set of decisions and another group of motivated and well-meaning people go against that. Every development is then a matter of controversy and conflict. That should not happen in a small country if we set out our priorities corectly from the outset and have somebody there who keeps the criteria in mind. The Environmental Protection Agency is the correct agency to take responsibility but we need to have a Minister who can give these issues his single-minded attention.
That should be made to happen because, despite all the information we now have at our fingertips, terrible destruction is taking place in our environment as we speak. I speak particularly of the fish kills in rivers in County Cork within the last ten days where fish life has been wiped out in whole stretches of rivers. It will be years before fish life is restored to those rivers. That ought not to happen but then, somehow or other, that seems to come within the ambit of another Minister and another Department. Many of the regulations seem to be enforced by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. All these matters fall between stools and that is an unsatisfactory set of circumstances which must be tackled.
There is an up-to-date and modern law on water pollution and the penalties exist, but there is something fatally wrong in the enforcement of the law because if there was not, Lough Sheelin, one of Europe's premier trout fish lakes, would not now be dead. Our environmental development position is critical and we will not make the progress we need to make for the remainder of this century unless someone is at the helm with responsibility for environmental protection only.
The other side of the Minister's responsibility is local government. We are all at one on the need for reform. Most urban dwellers live in a built-up environment, the quality of which has been deteriorating steadily over the last dozen years. In cities, footpaths have begun to disintegrate, public lighting is obsolete, streets are riddled with potholes and the physical environment is of poor quality.
That matter will not and cannot be tackled unless we put in place a proper system of financing local authorities, or take the services out of the hands of local authorities and privatise them. We must do one or the other, we cannot continue with the pretence that local authority services are being delivered to a good standard, because the money is not there.
My party told the Minister and his predecessor that it was prepared to play its role in putting in place a proper system of financing for local authorities. We will not play party politics with the issue because it is far too serious and too many people are suffering from the poor quality of local services delivered every week. We are prepared to assist the Minister and the Government in that regard so that local services can be brought up to the standard which existed before rates on domestic dwellings were abolished.
While we are building great motorways, our county roads, minor roads and city streets are falling into disintegration and something must be done about them quickly. Portugal is a peripheral country like Ireland but someone who was there recently told me it seems to be able to spend quite a proportion of EU funding on roads we would deem minor. That does not happen here; we are constantly told we can only spend EU money on major motorways.
I fail to understand that a country in the same position as us can spend Structural Funds on minor roads. I checked the matter and there are signs on minor roads to state that their costs have been met by EU Structural Funds. If they can do it, we should be able to do the same.
It is appalling to see the disparity when one leaves a wonderful motorway and takes the car through a series of potholes. It makes a nonsense of road building and of our attempts to promote the country as a tourist destination. Tourists want to get off the motorways and on to minor roads, but they soon see the huge disparity.
They probably were the main roads in Portugal.
No, that is not the case, I asked because it is an obvious question. In any event, if the Minister cannot do this I would be pleased to know why. Motorists pay the best part of £500 million in road tax and if the Minister cannot obtain the money from Structural Funds, as an emergency measure he should seek the money elsewhere.
It is legitimate at this juncture to ask that money paid by motorists in tax should be put back into the roads, considering their pitiful condition. That should be done even on a once-off basis for two to three years until the roads are brought up to a certain standard. It seems sensible that tax collected in respect of a certain item should be spent on that item. People would see whether they were getting value for money, rather than all the tax money collected going into the black hole of the central Exchequer. The Minister should also take on board the need to upgrade public lighting in urban areas, which is now obsolete, and to repair footpaths and streets.
Housing absorbs a large amount of public money and there is no end to the demand for it. I am happy that in recent times all the public housing constructed has been of a high standard. That was not the case in the 1960s when a number of rash housing programmes were put in place and flats were——
Deputy Molloy was the Minister at the time.
I will have to check that.
He was not in the Progressive Democrats then.
If that is the case it can be said that he saw the light. There is a serious problem in upgrading low cost housing because just as we should not have a disparity between major motorways and minor roads, there should not be a disparity between the living standards of those living in well-constructed modern local authority houses and those condemned to live in low cost flats and apartments. If they were of poor quality 30 years ago they are much worse now, because they have worn badly. There is a clear onus on the Minister to make moneys available to enable that low cost housing to be brought up to standard.
The time has come for the Department to look at the introduction of home improvement grants, admittedly on a limited scale. Taxpayers' money should not be used as it it was the last time home improvement grants were available; they were used to construct sun lounges and other luxury extensions to houses. That was a waste of taxpayers' money and we should not return to that.
However, in our towns, villages and cities there is ageing housing stock but which is good in many ways. With an injection of a home improvement grant those houses could have a life span of another 100 years. I ask the Minister to introduce grants to revitalise our ageing housing stock in certain cases and to bring it up to standard.
There is no provisions in the Estimate for the completion of the Mallow road and the Blackpool bypass. I have to make a strong case for them. The Cork to Mallow road is almost complete. Only one section remains to be completed but unless and until that section is complete the north side of Cork, which I represent, will not be able to attain its proper economic potential. Investors who come to our city look to our roads, they see a section of road not yet developed and it is a huge impediment to the IDA, Forbairt and others who want to attract job generating industry to my costituency of Cork North Central. Only one section of that road remains to be completed and I ask the Minister to make the money available.
I am not a Member of this committee but I felt I should attend to make a few points.
We will not allow the Deputy to discuss roads.
That is one of the main issues but there are other topics to which I would like to refer.
With regard to pollution control, the efforts to upgrade sewage treatment works have to be appreciated. That work must continue because the environment is very important and upgrading group water schemes must also continue. This may not be within the Minister's remit, but perhaps he would look at a recent court decision in which a group water scheme committee was told it had not the power to collect charges. This will result in such groups breaking up for want of finance. It may be a proper decision in law but it must be changed. The groups must have the power to collect; they cannot work without finance. There will always be a number of people who do not wish to pay but will be compelled to do so. I ask the Minister to address that problem.
With regard to the issue of planning permission for developments, I wish to refer to the problem in County Leitrim which is of importance to my county as we would be net beneficiaries from that development. People are not clear as to whether it would deal with chips and sawdust from sawmills or will take fall from our forests now maturing and turn it into chips and sawdust for their manufacturing process. Proper negotiations did not take place. We should make sure this does not happen again; that there are not eleventh hour objections, no matter who they may come from.
There should be proper negotiations with all concerned. These people will come in anyway but they have a legitimate interest and should be brought in. If there are discussions there can always be a resolution to the problem.
The housing of the homeless and travellers is a serious problem. I will not accept that anybody has the right to pitch their camp in front of a development by a young couple who purchase a site and build a bungalow. People must be protected. However, the unfortunate people on the side of the road must be housed. The episode in Moate should not — and would not — have happened if there had been proper negotiation. It is sad for the family and for the people concerned.
There is a halting site in Cavan town which the Minister of State, Deputy McManus, would have seen, which is a reasonably good development. It is not a complete solution because, although I appreciate the recent grant aid for a further extension, more and more families are arriving. Cavan cannot take them all; every county must be mandated to take its share of the families. Some of the families are traditional to certain counties.
If there were sufficient such developments in each major town we could address this problem. Trying to fob it off and say it is somebody else's responsibility will not work. In our county the particular families are our responsibility, as are families in other counties. I will not accept that they should be at liberty to travel the country and pitch their camp in front of somebody's home and deface it. That is not good enough and people must be protected.
I take issue with Deputy Quill who referred to Lough Sheelin as a dead lake. It is far from it. Lough Sheelin was never in better shape and has been fully restored. It is fishing exceptionally well this year with an excellent catch of healthy trout in the lake. There were problems through ignorance. However, they were addressed, people have cooperated and the level of phosphates in the lake has been substantially reduced. If Lough Sheelin can be restored people should not fear for any other lake if there is goodwill and commitment.
The finger was pointed at some farmers in that area. The best way to get fertiliser on grassland is through spreading farmyard slurry, which may amaze people. The runoff from artificial fertiliser is more dangerous than that from farmyard slurry — which has been proved by evidence and statistics. The artificial fertiliser industry does not want that to be common knowledge. However, it is a fact. It is the runoff from artificial fertilisers and a problem with one or two towns' sewerage systems that are affecting the lake. If they are addressed then Lough Sheelin will be safe for generations to come. As Deputy Quill said, it is one of the finest lakes in Europe for fishing.
I am sorry about that Deputy.
That is all right. It gives me a chance to invite people to come and spend their weekends fishing there.
It was misinformation on my part.
The principal reason for my attendance is to raise the serious problem of roads. When in Opposition I highlighted this problem more than anybody. Supporting the Minister in Government I cannot change my stance. What was wrong when I was in Opposition is still wrong. I am sorry that my colleagues in Fianna Fáil did not deal with the problem although I raised it on numerous occasions.
The people in rural areas are looking to the Minister. If he does not put together a policy of tar and chippings to repair the county roads he and his Department will have failed in their task. We have the raw materials; we have the quarries and the gravel; the tar is a by-product of crude oil. If we cannot combine those with the workforce and machinery available and repair those roads, there is something radically wrong with those preparing our policies. I know it is not a simple matter but it is not being addressed.
There are too many complaints about the approach to the repair of county roads. In some cases an excellent job is done and in another there are total failures. It is not acceptable. A sum of £103 million may be substantial amount but it is not sufficient. Many local authorities' moneys are now almost exhausted and they are trying to spread it out to keep their workforce employed until the end of the year. It annoys people in rural areas when they see county council workers moving from one place to another trying to put in time when there is so much work to be done.
My county council is down 12 per cent on last year. People do not mind where the money comes from when the job is done. I understood that by 5 May the Minister was to have made an important statement on this problem and how it was to be tackled. I do not mind waiting a month or two but we cannot wait longer than that. There will be a rebellion. Do not let the summer go by as it is ideal weather for the work and goodwill can be harnessed. The people are prepared to pay. The situation is so bad, they will make their contribution. A petrol levy or some other form of levy specifically for improving roads has been suggested. The moneys have to be generated and channelled properly and we want to see value for money. I accept we are not getting that in all cases. I hope for a positive response from the Minister.
I agree with my colleague, Deputy Boylan, about Lough Sheelin. It is about all I agree with him on. It is only right that we should pay tribute to the Department of the Environment, the local authority and the other Government Departments involved when there was a serious threat to Lough Sheelin.
I would not want to go near it until after the turn of the century.
None of the local Deputies would take up that challenge.
They would be welcome. The Minister, the Minister of State, any of the officials or any of our colleagues, including Deputy Quill would be welcome to do some fishing on the lake and would benefit from it. One of the questions Deputy Dempsey raised related to information from local authorities. Where statistical questions are submitted to the Minister, could the information be given to those of us who are not members of local authorities? Simple information, such as how much land and a local authority holds for industrial development, is surely available. I find that parliamentary questions are being refused more and more on the basis that the Minister does not have responsibility. This happens not only in the Minister's Department but in a whole range of Departments. It is important in the interests of democracy and in doing our work effectively that the information, if it is available, is given to us.
On the question of roads, I am interested in how the Minister can arrive at the conclusion that the amount of money allocated is higher than in any other year when the figure is £103 million this year and it was £107 million last year. The Minister's colleague, Deputy Allen, spoke to a motion on roads earlier this year. I suggested to him that, if he went into a national school in Cork and told them that £103 million was a higher figure than £107 million, they would put him out. Having said that, the Minister did not refer to the fact that this year there is £8 million of INTERREG money and last year there was no INTERREG money because the first INTERREG programme had been completed the previous year.
This is the first Estimate since the IRA ceasefire and we should all welcome the ceasefire. It brings great opportunities for the Border region and also brings great challenges in terms of trying to compete with the North for new investment. Much work has been done to attract new investment and we had the recent Washington conference, which was successful. It is essential that extra money be provided in the budgets for the next couple of years for the Border region to bring the infrastructure there into line with the rest of the country. I do not want that done at the expense of the Irish taxpayer, but the taxpayers of the European countries — mainly Germany and France — are providing money through the INTERREG programme specifically for the Border region.
It is a disappointment to find that in the allocation for roads this year, when the Cavan-Monaghan constituency got £2.4 million of INTERREG money, our overall allocation was down by £800,000. If we take the INTERREG money and use the arithmetic the Minister used when he told us the road allocation, it means the allocation for roads in Cavan-Monaghan is down by £3.2 million, about 40 per cent. Will the Minister look at the question of money provided by the taxpayers of Europe as additional funding for the Border counties should not be a substitute for Exchequer funds, as has been the case heretofore?
I agree with Deputy Boylan on the goodwill of the community in Cavan-Monaghan. The pilot schemes I introduced during the few months I was in the Department of the Environment were well received and have been developed, particularly in County Cavan. They seem to be working effectively. I would not agree with an increase in the price of petrol, which would damage a fair balance in the economy in counties on both sides of the Border. We are all aware that the economy of the Border counties on this side was devastated in the past by sudden increases in the price of petrol. No matter how good the motive, it would be dangerous to distort the difference in the price of petrol North and South of the Border and I am not sure there would be any benefit to the Exchequer at the end of the day. The last time that happened, in 1982, the Exchequer lost not alone on petrol but on a range of goods when people crossed the Border to do their shopping. I agree with Deputy Dempsey that money is not necessarily the answer to the problem of roads.
There are two other areas I will touch on. The first is value for money. There should be a means of spot-checking work done to see if the Department providing the money, is satisfied with the quality of work. Work cannot be done on Irish roads 12 months of the year, yet people are being paid to work on the roads for 48 weeks of the year and the month they are off is one of the better months for working on the roads. I wonder if flexi-hours have been looked at. Could the workers be allowed to have November, December and January off and then work ten hours a day during the good weather? There is no doubt that working on the hardcore surface of roads has to be done in good weather. Too often we see the results of doing it in bad weather — it is money wasted.
On the question of co-operation with the local community and what they can do for themselves. There are two things they can do. They can protect the roads. It is estimated that £1 million worth of damage is done to the roads every year in Cavan-Monaghan by allowing water to lie on the roads — a simple thing that could be attended to by the local community. I do not want to see council workers working on drains or on the side of the road when there are so many potholes. They should always work on the hardcore surface.
The local community, with good co-operation, would do much of the work. Work such as clearing of drains along the side of the road, letting water away off the road, and opening channels is being done by council workers. With the type of vehicles using narrow roads now, a channel could be cleared today and a milk lorry could come along and block the channel again. There is a case to be made for much closer co-operation with the local community. In the past, I suggested spending some of the Estimate on producing a film, perhaps in association with the Irish Farmers's Association, to demonstrate to people what it takes to make and maintain a road and what they can do to keep the roads in good shape. That would be beneficial. The Minister knows from his experience in the Department of Health that films made in association with different organisations were beneficial, including one done in association with the IFA on farm safety. Something like that would be beneficial as would engineers going out to talk to the communities about roads.
I wish to refer briefly to housing and the reduction from £4 million to £3 million in the contribution to health boards. I thought the work being done was good value for money and, out of a budget of £192.7 million, that type of reduction is hard to understand.
In the context of local authority reform, there is the question of the number of local authorities providing services like water and sewerage schemes. What is the smallest number of people for whom an authority should be providing water and sewerage schemes? It raises fundamental questions about whether one is getting value for money in these schemes and whether those being planned are adequate to meet future needs, particularly in terms of job creation. Part of the problem is that local authorities design schemes and when they see the cost, they will not redesign. I ask the Minister to look at that. The final point is the question of consultation with existing local authorities on local government reform.
Coming from the heart of rural Ireland, I share the concern expressed about county roads. Of all the issues that are important to rural people, there is none more important than county roads and the network upon which most people have to travel to get to work and other places.
The problem of county roads did not arise today or yesterday. Its origins go back to the early 1980s when the Supreme Court ruled that the levying of rates was unconstitutional. Nothing was put in place to replace the money which was raised in this way and therefore there is no adequate base for the funding of county road development. We have been subject to ad hoc allocations from year to year and that is no way to plan development, especially the infrastructural work which is critical in rural areas.
I applaud the Minister for the initiative of an integrated plan because that is the only way forward. One cannot just throw money at the problem but must operate in a planned way. I applaud my own local authority and I invite the Minister to examine how it tries, with meagre resources, to operate a system. It concentrates on the full-scale restoration of one mile rather than bits and pieces of three miles and then tackles the other miles the following year. That is essential and it is the way forward. I have no doubt it will take at least £1 billion over a ten to 12 year period — and that is additional to existing funds — to tackle this problem in rural Ireland. We should not run away from it.
When those roads were put in place in the 1950s and 1960s the traffic to which some of them were subjected was just horses and carts. Now they are subject to heavy volumes of traffic, including huge tankers, and they are not able to carry these loads. In order to recognise that rural people have rights as well, it is critical that the Minister brings this plan into play. My own view is that, no matter where we get it, the money will have to be got to ensure this plan is put in place over the next ten to 12 years.
There has been a large increase in the number of cars using the roads. People from rural areas ask where the £180, £250 or £300 they pay in car tax goes. Why does some of it not go to the local authority so people can see the benefits of paying a road tax? It is gobbled up by a greedy central Exchequer and they do not think they ever get the benefits of it. It is all right to put forward grandiose plans but we have to face up to our responsibilities as well and try and finance them. Some of the motor tax revenue which is gathered locally should be retained by the local authority and diverted into a county road strengthening fund. Once people see where the money is going, they will accept paying a few pounds extra if it will help the upkeep of the roads. It is critical that we do something about it.
Very often local authorities set about their estimates in October or November and budget, as best they can, based upon a certain level of increase for the following year. The money is signalled from the Department of the Environment in February or March. A road may then have to be omitted from the scheduled works because there is inadequate funding and tremendous disappointment and anger builds up in the community. The moneys available for county road funding should be sign-posted in adequate time so that early decisions can be made on what roads should be tackled.
There certainly has been a drop this year. Many local authorities are proceeding to do the best they can in relation to roads but they will find themselves in a stranglehold from a financial viewpont in September. That is a major source of worry to me and any person who serves on a local authority. Something should be done to help out in the interim while this plan is being examined and costed and proposals for financing it are put on the table.
Local authorities have inadequate funding for county roads because there is no rating base. In the mid-1980s there was a massive reduction in the number of local authority employees, particularly permanent outdoor staff. I have identified that and I stand over it in any committee. This is not the first time I have said it at this committee or any other committee. Very often local authority employees were dealing with their own area and were able to identify problems in a preventive way and take corrective action.
I compliment the Minister and the Minister of State on the housing programme, which is very close to my own heart. I would be eager for this programme to continue right through to the year 2000 because, good as it is, it is still just barely adequate. There are two schemes I want to mention to the Minister — Deputy O'Hanlon referred to one of them. If the Minister wants value for money, the housing aid for the elderly is an example of a scheme that should be supported. The other one is the local improvements scheme. Those are two excellent schemes because there is flexibility and discretion built into them and they are not strangled or suffocated by rigid bureaucracy.
The Minister should ensure that, come hell or high water, further finances are found for those schemes in the future. I agree that the reduction from £4 million to £3 million in housing aid for the elderly is regrettable. The Minister looked after local authority houses but there are old people living in houses in rural areas who, without that scheme, will have no bathrooms or toilets and will have roofs falling in and no way of looking after themselves. This is certainly a most important scheme and I urge the Minister to ensure that adequate funding is forthcoming for it and the local improvement schemes. Were it not for the local improvement schemes, all hell would have broken loose in rural Ireland at this stage.
I thank Deputy Penrose for being brief. First, I will call Deputy Wallace and then Deputy Broughan for a maximum of five minutes. I am anxious to get to questions and answers.
Unfortunately when one is last, most of the time is used up by others. However, I will be as brief as possible.
I will be flexible, Deputy.
I appreciate the Chairman's position. I welcome the Minister and I hope he makes as good a contribution in the Department of the Environment as he did in the Department of Health where he made much progress — with our help, of course. However, there is a tremendous amount of work to be done in the Department of the Environment, which is very large, because many problems exist.
The Minister indicated that this year's budget is £900 million, which I thought was a good figure. However, I then wondered to what extent my constituency would benefit and I am disappointed. This situation is a repeat of the approach to the Finance Estimates last week because we are dealing with a fait accompli. We are simply talking and receiving information and this system is outdated. My colleagues and I should be discussing the changes required next year and the contributions which will be available. It is an outdated method to discuss the Estimates to comply with the regulation that they must go back to the House before the Bill is passed.
The Department of the Environment has made a major contribution but the problems continue. For example, Deputy Penrose mentioned housing. There has been a big improvement in the housing programme but it should be remembered that money was diverted in recent years to try to deal with areas where there was unsuitable accommodation. One example mentioned earlier was the NBA housing. This involved bad planning and we are paying dearly for it now. In Cork, approximately £20 million has already been spent on bricking up and refurbishment work, such as the provision of bathrooms. Good money was diverted as a result of bad planning in the past.
Much new thinking must be done with regard to the voluntary services, which were mentioned by Deputy Penrose and Deputy Quill. There is no doubt that there are people prepared to give, but they encounter obstacles along the way. This affects many organisations, such as the Simon Community and others dealing with the homeless. The Good Shepherd Sisters in Cork are the best example I can give. Many of the new centres in Cork today emanated from this group because people met them, spoke to them and assisted and supported them.
However, we are not going down this road fast enough. It is great value for money because the vast majority of the work, perhaps 70 per cent, is voluntary while the other 30 per cent is paid. It provides an ideal opportunity for the Minister and he recognises this. It is a very important area where there is good value for money and the community can be involved. People are prepared to give their time and services to help those in their area who are less well off.
Regarding Blackpool, there must be a plan for the northside of Cork city. The Minister for the Environment acknowledged last week that there are major problems in this area and I ask the Minister of State to do likewise. She visited the area during the by-election and others visited it during European elections. When people want to make a case about how bad things are, we are everybody's fall guy. One candidate in a European election said this area was the blackspot of Europe, but we have not seen that person since.
There are problems in this area and the Department and Ministers have a role to play. Unless we try to get it right, it will go wrong. There is no point using the peace process as an excuse for cutbacks because we have serious problems. I ask the Minister to ensure that matters, such as the Blackpool bypass, are considered. This is the last link in the chain but it is not going ahead. People cannot understand why they and the Blackpool area always suffer. The Chairman may laugh but if he lived there he would not laugh. He should go and see a beautiful road, on which I travelled at midnight last night——
Is the Deputy aware that a quarter of the entire national roads budget will be spent in Cork this year?
A sum of £65 million will be spent on a tunnel but that is no use to the people in the areas with real problems. We must face that fact. I spent an afternoon in the Glen, Mayfield and Knocknaheeny area recently where the people have major problems. We cannot solve them all but it would be different if we had to live there. The surroundings — not the people — are the problem. The general environment does not enhance their hopes for the future and this area should be helped. I may be raising incidental matters but they are all important.
We are discussing the Estimates today and getting Mickey Mouse answers about where various sums of money will be spent. However, this is not the way to run the country, we must find new ways and make proper plans. For example, there are problems with regard to education in the Cork North Central constituency. Another example is the fact that the Minister of State made a statement recently about the flats in the area. However, they will not receive assistance and work must be done from existing resources.
I appreciate the position regarding this year, but these are serious problems and I ask that they be given special attention. There is no point extending sympathy to people when their flats are burned. They are being driven from their homes in the middle of the night because they live in a block of flats where there are six units and the place nearly all goes up in flames and their lives are in danger. There is no point in sympathising with these people. They want action and they want it now.
The Department of the Environment and other Departments must take these problems on board. We were assured that approximately £3 million or £4 million would be spent this year on the Blackpool bypass, but we are now told that it will be approximately £200,000. Why must it be this area? I put this question to the Minister as he makes the decisions in conjunction with the officials in the Department.
The people and clergy in Cork are attacking politicians. They have no time for us and are suspicious about everything we say because they do not believe us. There are many problems there and we have certain responsibilities. We cannot solve all the problems but we can go a long way down the road.
I compliment the Minister for what he has achieved but much more remains to be done. I look forward to working with him, I mean this sincerely because these matters are above politics and politicians. Many of the people with problems have never had jobs. They work on community employment schemes and even that was removed from them recently. This is the type of situation which exists and I will continue to raise these matters until I get answers and action.
I now call Deputy Broughan, the distinguished leader of the Dublin City Council and the distinguished Chairman of its general purposes committee.
I thank the Chairman for his warm welcome. Several Members of this committee are also Members of another committee which is sitting at present. Minister Lowry is addressing that committee and it makes the position quite difficult for us. However, I congratulate Minister Howlin and Minister of State McManus for the outstanding start they made on the administration of the Department of the Environment.
Across a wide range of policies, they have produced some very innovative and constructive ideas for local authorities, for which we are all grateful. I congratulate them in particular on the new housing document which offers a wide range of approaches to local authorities to meet the target of 7,000 units at which this Government is bravely aiming in the public housing area. There was some criticism of the improvement in the tenant purchase scheme in Dublin city. People felt the one third discount plus £3,000 still did not meet the number of people on social welfare who would like to buy their property. A few years ago a tenant could, very cheaply, buy out a local authority house. However, there is still a difficulty — as the Chairman is aware from his experience — with some tenants who wish to purchase there property but find the repayments a little too high.
In relation to water supply, the Minister recently met a delegation from Dublin City Council. He is aware that the water supply in Dublin City and the greater Dublin area is on a knife edge at present. We asked him to try to expedite the famous contract 1C, which would give us a little more ease in terms of water supply over the next number of years. The city of Paris has the total water supply of Dublin, approximately one billion gallons a day, as a reserve supply. This is only used to run the machinery, to keep it in working condition, and in emergencies. We have no fall back position and we are on a knife edge. The Minister inherited this problemb but something must be done about it. Other members of this committee accompanied me when I visited the Minister in his office about that matter and he is aware of our feelings.
With regard to waste management, I welcome the publication of the Waste Bill and the interesting ideas therein. In the Dublin area the waste problem has been allowed to develop into a crisis. We are waiting for a final court decision about the Kill facility and we are not sure what we will do if there is no dump in a neighbouring area. We are particularly anxious that the Minister's proposals regarding recycling and the downsizing of waste be implemented in a major way. There is a tremendous role for the public sector and local authorities in recycling and I would like the Minister to pursue that aspect.
I congratulate the Minister on his proposals for county roads. There is one problem on the northside of Dublin of which the Minister is aware. Kilbarrack DART station is classified under the roads budget of Dublin city council. We provided about £100,000 towards the refurbishment of the bridge there but we need an extra £250,000. Perhaps the Minister would keep that in mind when compiling the next Estimates. Kilbarrack is an internationally famous station because it appears in all of Roddy Doyle's books. However, it is also famous for being a bad facility where people have been mugged and hassled and where drugs are distributed. Perhaps the Minister would do something to help the local authority in that regard.
There is also provision in the Estimates for An Bord Pleanála. One of the problems with planning matters in the Dublin area is that sometimes An Bord Pleanála seems to go against the best endeavours of our planners. Applications turned down by our planners will almost certainly be approved by An Bord Pleanála. There is an additional problem, however. Some estates in the Dublin area are being developed for periods of up to 15 years. Builders keep making new applications for the same estate of, perhaps, a couple of hundred houses and people are obliged to live on a type of building site. In one estate, located in Raheny in my constituency, people have had to live like that for the last 15 or 18 years. Could the Minister address that problem?
I congratulate the Minister and the Minister of State on their comprehensive approach to the matters covered by the Department of the Environment budget.
On the question of anti-social behaviour by local authority tenants new legislation is required to deal with that and the question of estate management. It must be put on a completely different plane given the anti-social behaviour of a small number of tenants who are wrecking many flat complexes and housing estates and making life impossible for the people there. We need a law that will quickly bind them to the peace because the eviction process is too slow and usually unsuccessful. That is an important issue.
Another issue is that a large number of people believe there are too many apartments in the inner city and that we should focus more on building houses in the inner city. People fear that we might have tenements in a few years time when the tax concessions run out.
I welcome the rural village renewal scheme. I am also glad there is an urban renewal scheme. However, there is no urban village renewal scheme and some of the villages in Dublin are in a terrible mess. Inchicore, Clondalkin and many other villages are not covered by either scheme and something must be done about that.
My main point relates to the problem of local government finance. One area we did not discuss, although it has been mentioned, is the question of value for money and the efficiency of local government. I wish to return to that issue later.
I thank the Deputies for welcoming the housing estimates and particularly for their welcome for the new housing programme. It is a major programme which goes towards meeting the demand for housing.
Deputy Quill spoke about sub-standard local authority housing of relatively recent history. The remedial work scheme is in place to refurbish housing, including more recent housing stock. Indeed, much of the work is targeting newer housing as well as old style housing where there are no bathrooms and so forth.
Deputy Wallace mentioned flat complexes which were built in the wave of building that took place in the 1960s and 1970s. I have made considerable efforts to make progress in providing fire safety facilities in those flats. I looked at flats where a fire occurred and I was appalled at the lack of fire safety provision. However, it is the responsibility of Cork Corporation — and these are not new flats; they have been there for 25 years — to provide fire safety measures and to maintain the flats. It is fortunate that they come under the remedial work scheme and that it is possible for me to ensure that work is carried out. Cork Corporation has provided a programme which we are trying to ensure will meet the emergency needs there.
Deputy Quill mentioned home improvement grants. We are keeping this matter under review but there are no proposals. The previous scheme was very costly,. No scheme can work unless it is finely targeted and we must learn from past experience.
With regard to the task force for the elderly and notwithstanding Deputy O'Hanlon's comment that the sums did not add up, the reality is that the tax amnesty distorted the figures. The underlying figures show an increase over last year and the Minister was able to secure an extra £1 million for the task force budget. That does not mean any of us is happy with the budget. The task force is immensely effective at targeting elderly people and their needs. Everybody in the Department would like to see more resources being targeted in that area. However, we must deal with reality and the reality is that we have £3 million this year following a great deal of effort.
A number of Deputies referred to the provision for travellers. We are talking about a very small population within the larger population. Just over 1,000 families are living on the roadside. Many of those would accept housing if they were offered it. I strongly recommend that local authorities look at the various options. They are capable of providing group housing for travellers outside of their normal housing allocation. They should look seriously at that option. The task force report will be publicly available shortly. I wish to sound a word of caution. I would not like anybody to consider the publication of this report as an excuse for not providing traveller accommodation. There is an obligation on local authorities to make this provision and they should fulfil that obligation.
Recently I read comments in this regard by some public representatives. It is totally unacceptable that public representatives, particularly Members of the Oireachtas, should block progress being made by local authorities. There is an obligation on all of us to face hard decisions. Local councillors, Deputies or Ministers were not elected just to make the easy decisions. It requires courage but the matter must be tackled. Unless it is tackled there will continue to be conflict and illegal encampments. Local authorities are seeking more powers and greater local government. If one judged them on their performance on traveller accommodation it would not augur well for them. If there is a devolution of powers decisions must be made and defended, whether they are easy or not. Certainly, their record on traveller acommodation is uneven. I heartily commend those local authorities facing up to their obligations, even in the teeth of opposition, and the public representatives who have taken flak.
The tenant purchase scheme is good and meets the needs of urban areas, particularly in Dublin, where we gave great consideration to the fact that house prices are high. The shared ownership option means people can afford to buy their homes, even though they are living in high price areas. I agree there is a problem of anti-social families and I would like to tackle this and hear from local authorities what measures could be put into place which are possible, acceptable and effective. I am open to any proposals on this. Local authorities across the country face this problem, which affects a minority of people, but one problem family can cause mayhem in a community and this is not in the public interest.
For the first time there is an allocation of £100,000 for estate management programmes. I am receiving proposals from local authorities on these programmes and I am enthusiastic about this development because it is the key to resolving many of the problems. Local communities are a great resource which is undervalued and under-developed.
There is a problem with regard to much of the apartment design in the past but I do not think this necessarily means that apartments are bad. A great deal relates to the size of apartments and the poor quality of design. We are now moving more and more to an urbanised society and cannot expect to have suburban houses in the the middle of our cities and should not choose to have this option. This does not mean there is not a role for urban housing but when high density living applies to many of our population, we must use land effectively. This is part of city living and has great benefits because we can have a tremendous range of facilities in urban societies which cannot be provided in more spread out rural societies.
We must look seriously at the principle of sustainable development in relation to suburban sprawl. We need to have a proper balance between protecting our countryside and the consolidation of towns and cities. This puts a requirement on us to develop a different approach to building than in the past but it also provides us with a much richer diversity of building. If apartments have not worked in the past in certain instances, we must look at their size and design. We have already changed the regulations on what qualifies under the tax incentive schemes to favour larger apartments. We are part of the EU and need to see the issue in this context. We are very much an urban society.
Apartments provide a type of accommodation which is needed but the argument of inner city communities is that they do not bring vitality to the areas and do not bring people to schools, shops and local pubs. The balance between houses and apartments may not be right. This is certainly the view of the inner city which I have the privilege to represent.
Deputy Dempsey and Deputy Quill made points about the scale of my Department. I have come to terms with this in the last six months. I was involved over the last two years in another large Department which also spends a great deal of money. There are clear divisions in my current Department. I have reflected on this and it gives me a great advantage because there is not a natural conflict between a Minister responsible for development and one responsible for environmental protection.
I have noticed that there is a tendency in EU countries, even those who have appointed Ministers responsible for environmental protection at Cabinet level, to expand this role, and that Ministers in several EU countries have had functions added to their environmental protection portfolios. In Denmark the Minister for the Environment is also the Minister for Energy. It is not unusual for the Minister for the Environment to have housing and roads under his or her portfolio.
I think this is an advantage because it does not result in tension. I have met many groups, from the Construction Industry Federation to the pharmaceutical industry, who see me as somebody who will demand the highest environmental standards but, at the same time, is pro-development and pro-construction. These are not mutually exclusive. We are expending huge resources on sewage and water supply, which are environmentally friendly and good and enhance the environment and, yet, are significant infrastructural developments. This places demands on the Minister but the Department is structured in such a way that it can meet those demands. This is my view after my first six months as Minister for the Environment.
We will talk to the Minister next year.
It was a good decision to bring the environmental protection portfolio directly under my responsibility so that it would have Cabinet status and rank because it is a core, not an ancillary, feature of my Department and one I want to advocate at the Cabinet table. Some of the issues on which I have focused during the last six months have been the strong promotion of the environmental enhancement agenda and the national sustainable development strategy which is now being formulated and on which we have done a grat deal of work.
The Bill on waste has been published and I hope Second Stage will be taken in the House before the summer recess so that this committee can discuss it at length. The Bill will have a great impact and is second only to the Environmental Protection Agency Act in terms of its scope and the impact it will have on the environment if, indeed, it is second to that Act. I will be taking a number of initiatives on issues from litter to the control of waste generation and recycling, all of which will take a huge amount of time and public engagement and I look forward to working closely with Members of this committee when legislation on these matters comes before it for discussion.
The Taoiseach's statement on local government reform, about which Deputy Dempsey asked, will be made shortly and I will convey the Deputy's views that this statement should be made in the House in the first instance. I have given a general overview on many occasions of my views on local government. I am committed and wedded to the concept of local government and have been involved in local government. There is a great deal wrong with local government and a great deal of disillusionment with those involved. We need to maintain the involvement of the people in local government and attract people who are not attracted to it at the moment. This will only be done by giving local authorities enhanced powers. I know that all Ministers for the Environment talk about this and are expected to do so. There are a few important nettles to be grasped. I will push hard at grasping them but I will not be able to do this alone.
This issue hinges on a system of funding local authorities. We can have all the structures we like — and many Ministers and reports in the past talked about powers and structures — but local authorities are pivoted on the funding base we give them. If they are dependent on central Government for funding, they will never be autonomous and independent.
I challenge local and regional authorities — I said this when I met them — to tackle the issue now. There is comfort for local authority members to be responsible for spending but not for revenue generation. In this situation they can always point the finger at the Minister for the Environment or somebody else for things which are not being done and claim credit for things which are being done positively. There is a major challenge to local authorities to engage in the process, which, as I see it, will conclude before the next election, with the publication sometime next year of a White Paper on funding.
The only two criteria I have laid down as regards whatever funding mechanism is put forward are that it must have popular support and must work. We will have to build that on a cross party and on a cross community basis; otherwise we might decide that it will not work, that we are content with the status quoand that we do not want a dynamic local government system in this country. Perhaps we will come to that conclusion. However, I will push an option and a discussion on that.
I know this sounds perverse but the issue which has generated a lot of debate since I became Minister, in addition to drink driving regulations, and which is relevant to the Estimate, is the difference in the £107 million available for non-national roads last year and the £103 million available this year. As a member of the previous Government, I was happy to take £100 million from the tax amnesty to relieve the debt on health boards and agencies throughout the country. I took the bulk of that with Cabinet agreement. I, or any health agency or health board, did not expect that £100 million to be a recurring pheonomenon and that they would have their debts paid every year.
The Department of Health did not get £100 million again this year. However, there was an expectation that other beneficiaries of the tax amnesty should get it again, but that was not possible because we do not have that source of funding. I could not add on to the degree needed. A significant increase was made available to bring it up over the base for all previous years. We use words like "underlying base". Some £15 million was added from tax amnesty receipts last year over and above the base. I did not have that £15 million and I could not justify getting it on the basis of trying to keep within tight budgetary parameters.
I am mindful of the fact that there will be a vote in the House at 8.30 p.m. tonight on the profligate nature of this Government in that it is overextending itself. It is hard to get the balance right and to please everyone. I have not heard anyone say that we should identify any subprogramme or programme and say it should be abolished or any other proposals of that nature.
Perhaps it is the masochistic streak in me, but I know that if I had provided an extra £4 or £5 million there would not have been a debate on county roads which the gap of £4 million generated. An extra £5 million would not have solved the problem of non-national roads. It has, however, generated a debate and I have commissioned a report, which is available to me. I will take some time to consider it, but not too long because I am mindful of comments made by not only Opposition Deputies but by Government ones.
This major issues needs to be addressed and it will involve dealing with central Government expenditure as well as local government expenditure and local communities. I met with the IFA yesterday and was impressed by its commitment. I am pleased by the proactive and positive stance taken by most people who have said they know it is a major problem, that they must be part of the solution and that it is not simply a matter of a bucket of money falling from the sky. If we could get local communities to help we could put forward a comprehensive view which might address this issue over a period of time.
Portugal has, for example, one-quarter of the roads we do. This country has three times the European Union average per 1,000 population. The number of roads under public control has increased by 10,000 kilometres since 1963. Local authorities are happily taking more roads in charge as we stretch the resources less thinly. An interesting statistic is that since 1986 State resources have virtually doubled in real terms whereas at the same time, in today's prices, resources made available by local authorities have decreased to 54 per cent of the 1986 level. As State resources racheted up, the local authority contribution declined. We are spending roughly the same amount, but more if it is coming from the Exchequer.
I understand that not every local authority has the same capacity to pay; each county has its own problems. However, there is a fivefold difference between the expenditure of the best and the worst on county roads per kilometre. Those who do the most screaming are often the least generous in terms of what they spend.
Deputy Dempsey mentioned the devolution of group water schemes. I intend to do something about that. I needed the agreement of the Department of Finance on the new rates of grants before I could do anything. I hope they will be devolved by the end of the year. That is the objective. I am proactive as regards devolution and my decision on hackneys and taxis was a new devolution downwards. Whenever I can I will pass down to those at local level what I believe can be most effectively handled at that level.
Deputy Dempsey also referred to the attitude of local authorities to the consumer, which we need to be proactive about. Staffing levels in local authorities are not good, and smaller ones, in particular, are very stretched. I am looking at issues like information technology. There are very good schemes and systems available which will give the public access to information. There is no reason a person cannot get direct access to all the data they need on planning applications, that is available in their local authority and provided on their PC. For those who do not have a PC, we could look at touch screen user-friendly information systems so they can call into their local office without having to talk to anyone.
In a public library.
That is a good idea. It is something which I started while in the Department of Health. I wanted health data available at every health centre through a touch screen system. It is something which the Local Government Computer Services Board is developing. I was very impressed with the data it has.
I do not believe there is a conflict between environmental protection and economic and social development. Those who object are not against development; they are not Luddites. There must be a balance. If someone has a point of view, even if it is a Minister, it should be made public rather than letters being written or telephone calls being made which nobody knows about, as has happened in the past. We should state the case and debate the issues so as to achieve the best result which will allow good development that does not comprise another area of development and which will enable us to maximise the tourist impact and have industrial development while keeping a pristine environment.
I had a long discussion on that issue with the pharmaceutical industry last night. Industry wants the highest standards. The integrated pollution control system is among the most stringent in the world. People from Japan and more developed European countries have looked at our licensing system as a model. We should fly that flag. We want the highest environmental standards, but we welcome clean industry which can, and will, comply with it. That stamp on industry will enhance its sales and abilities.
On that point, we objected to the timing of the Minister's objection in that he waited until planning permission was given.
He put in consultation at the correct time. It is a few years since I holidayed in the environs of Lough Sheelin and, because of what I have said, it will be a few years before I will be welcome in the area again.
Your apology has been so fulsome and gracious that I believe you would be welcome there tomorrow.
I may need some protection. I thank the Minister for responding as well as he did to point raised by me. As regards the amount for the Tidy Towns competition, I thought the running of this competition this year was being handed over to Bord Fáilte.
From Bord Fáilte to me.
Does that figure cover any initiative that would deal with the huge problems of litter in areas which are not involved in the Tidy Towns competition?
The sum of £50,000 is our contribution towards running the Tidy Towns competition. In addition, there is sponsorship of £80,000 from the commercial sector. My litter initiative is a separate issue.
Is there a budget for this?
The sum of £200,000 is the figure for the litter initiative. I have not finalised it yet. I wish to see how it will impact on the initiative.
Is that a new figure for this year?
Yes. My idea is to drive a programme of litter prevention. Although we will spend money on education, initiatives and so on, there will also be a stick element. I wish to consider the legislation on litter and see how it can be improved to make more of an impact.
Chairman, are we to proceed page by page?
On the Finance Estimates we allowed Members to go through lists of questions. We are masters of our own procedure.
May I suggest that we go through the programmes one by one and page by page? Some questions will probably arise.
We will aim to conclude a few minutes before 5.30 p.m.
Chairman, I understood that opening statements were to last for 30 minutes, but many of the questions I wanted to ask have been partly asked and partly answered. On the housing and acquisition programme, what guidelines does the Minister give to local authorities? In Dublin, houses are being built at a cost of £50,000 to £75,000 but are being bought at a cost of £27,000 to £45,000. Can they be bought at £75,000? This is something like the traveller issue. Many people are in favour of housing travellers and in favour of a social mix, but if Dublin Corporation were allowed buy houses for £75,000 many people would be screaming if it bought such houses next to them.
The guidelines are flexible in that we want good value for the housing provision. I spoke to local authorities on this issue. I want every local authority to use the entire social housing programme. Many of them are inviting all of their applicants for housing to discuss all of the options available. We hope to have 9,500 families housed this year under all the varieties of programmes. We have designated 3,500 local authority paid for starts and 400 purchases. I have not fixed the value. This should allow a local authority to purchase and obtain good value.
Can they purchase at £75,000?
It depends on what the alternative cost of building would be in the same locale. The criterion is value for money.
They appear to have a notion of purchasing cheaply but building expensively. Is this in response to an instruction from the Minister?
No. The whole running issue will be value for money. I spoke with the Minister for Finance this morning on this issue. I am willing to argue. I would facilitate a local authority if it were to advise me, for example, that from 40 local authority starts I have allocated to it, it could get better value if it built 35 houses and used the balance of the money on works in lieu. I want the full panoply of options, whether it be the provision of cheap sites, shared ownership options, a co-operative building or a local authority built house. I wish to provide the local authorities with as much flexibility as possible with regard to whatever option gives the best return and deals with the needs of housing applicants. Some local authorities are still trapped in a traditional view that the only thing to do is to build a house and give somebody a key, and some local authority applicants still have a fixed notion that this is the only option open to them. However, increasingly, this is changing.
Over the past couple of years more is being constructed and the sum for refurbishment appears to be falling. Not all the money is derived from the tax amnesty.
That only applied in respect of one year.
Is refurbishment not the priority it was three or four years ago?
According to the figures, the only sum that has dropped is in respect of the subheads which were boosted last year by the tax amnesty. Everything else is buoyant.
I am not sure if that is correct. For example, in Dublin we obtained a couple of million pounds for window replacements last year, which was a special case. It was a great programme and there is much upset that it is not to be renewed. However, the funding allocated for ordinary refurbishment that was not boosted by the tax amnesty has also slipped. I accept that the overall programme for building has increased.
The Deputy is referring to an authority basis rather than a programme basis.
No, it is on an overall basis.
I am not aware of that. To which subhead is the Deputy referring?
Subhead B1.2.
A sum of £2.5 million was allocated from the tax amnesty in 1994.
It is still reduced. This trend is certainly happening in Dublin, and from an examination of this subhead it appears to be also happening nationally. It may be that the Minister considers the main priority to be construction.
The change over the previous year occurs because the additional sum of £5.5 million in respect of the tax amnesty, which was allocated on the basis of £3 million for windows and £2.5 million for general remedial works, was taken off. The core figure has not changed; indeed, it has increased slightly.
With regard to value for money and the housing output, Dublin Corporation is now compelled to have all of its housing development within the city boundary. This is causing all kinds of problems, not the least of which is that it is rushing to grab every site regardless of social mix. To reach its targets it must take this approach. There is a form of planning process but no appeal. The planning manager is the housing manager. Including site acquisition costs and so on, some of the houses will cost perhaps more than twice as much to build as it would cost to buy in the same neighbourhood. Can this be justified?
It should buy houses.
It is doing this, but it should buy more houses.
That is not a problem for us. There is a problem for Dublin Corporation in that the land is scarce and the corporation has problems not faced by virtually any other authority. However, I have no difficulty in providing flexibility if I am told that there is better value for money for purchasing than building.
There is a better value for purchasing. For example, this week's housing committee meeting got a list of acquisitions in the Ballyfermot area where the average price is between £26,000 and £34,000. Dublin Corporation proposed to build new houses a few yards away in Chapelizod at a cost of £75,000.
Are these houses available to buy?
According to the list, approximately 40 were bought. Unfortunately, the corporation is sticking to traditional local authority areas. They are not moving out from these.
In view of your comments, Chairman, and those of Deputy N. Ahern, I will ask the assistant secretary dealing with housing to talk to the Dublin city manager about general policy so that he is au fait with the view of the Department and that we want value for money which presents the best option to the applicant.
The Minister should make this clear to all, not only the Dublin city manager.
It is explicitly set out in the social housing programme.
It may be explicit, but local authorities are not doing that. They seem to have this notion that once the Minister sends down an allocation for 40 starts, they only have to meet this number. Local authorities in County Meath, for example, would be able to purchase a lot more houses then they are doing at present.
There are a number of difficulties. If a young couple want to buy a house, they would not be too keen on the local authority bidding against them for it.
That problem has arisen?
That is an issue. It is fine if one is building and not purchasing that much, but if the local authority becomes the main bidder against every young couple trying to buy a house, that is not a great situation either. One has to strike a balance.
I knew of a case where a person was buying a former corporation house under the tenant purchasing programme and she was approved for £32,000 by the loans and grants section of the housing department. However, the housing and construction section of the same department offered £34,000 for it. The woman wanted that house because it was beside her mother and she wanted to look after her. She said that she was prepared to pay £34,000. She went back to the loans and grants section and was told that it was not worth that amount.
That shows the difficulties. It is not the local authority's role to be agents for inflation of house prices. There is no simple option to this. A variety of options are open to act wisely and sensibly. The best people to do this are the local authorities. They know what is affordable, what is good value for money and what are the needs of their communities.
The terms of the social housing programme, The Way Forward, have been explained in regional seminars across the country and no housing officer is in any doubt of its contents. Circulars have been sent out, the officers know what they say and they have read the documentation. There is flexibility, but there is no simple line. Whatever way one goes one will find a complication, and we have identified some of them.
There is a particular problem in Dublin city brought about by the fact that the manager is restricted to house building within the city boundary, which is an unnatural and restricted boundary. This is causing real planning problems in communities, is increasing the housing prices and will have to be examined. That restriction should have been phased in over a period of years rather than immediately.
Is that self-proposed?
No, it is law.
There is no statutory control. A local authority can build houses where they like but they have to apply to the authority in whose area they are building in for the planning permission.
Are you saying that Dublin Corporation could build houses in the county area?
My advice is that there is no statutory prohibition on that.
I presume one has to apply for planning permission?
That is correct.
That is a revelation.
When will the Minister act as judge and jury between the two bodies? The Minister may say that Dublin Corporation could build in the county area, but does it hand the houses over the following day, or can it keep them?
This is a difficult issue and there are heated representations arriving to me from all sides on the matter. Ultimately, I will make a determination; but I have first asked that rational debate should take place. Rather than me acting as Solomon, I would prefer it if there could be some degree of agreement. I have asked the managers of both bodies to sit down and work out a rational agreement rather than simply fight with each other and expect me to arbitrate.
Could the answer possibly lie in considering a joint housing agency between the four Dublin local authorities with joint housing lists?
That option occurred to me and I have not necessarily ruled it out.
It may need more thought.
When I suggested that as an idea when this issue was put before me, it was asked whether, having created separate local authorities and housing departments, we were now saying that we should have a joint housing committee to oversee all of them.
In the light of experience it is proper to act quickly, given the problems with transfer of maintenance, staff and other issues. There is a joint fire brigade service. There is also to some extent a co-ordinated library service and joint public lighting. There are joint services in existence.
Then we do not have a greater Dublin council.
I would favour it.
It is like Lanigan's Ball, Minister.
It is reasonable, since the Oireachtas has only recently decided on these matters, to at least give the local councils some opportunity to see if they can function. This is a real question that I, ultimately, will have to address and I do not intend waiting forever to deal with it. I expect to be facilitated by local management.
We have been categorically and repeatedly told by the housing manager of Dublin Corporation that he is prevented from conducting any housing development outside the city boundary and I would like to get that clarified.
There is no statutory prohibition against this. There is a policy which flows from the legislation.
Is there a statutory provision in the 1988 Act to house anybody that is in need of housing irrespective of what local authorities pass? If somebody in my urban district council area is looking for a house and houses become available in the county council area, one cannot ban that person from getting a house in the county council area. There was a court case in Athlone which made that clear.
That is correct.
I know the two Dublin Deputies are anxious to spend a lot of time on this matter and we only have 25 minutes left. I do not want to terminate it now.
It is a major issue in Dublin and it impinges on the values of houses. Three issues are causing problems at the moment. Dublin Corporation is rushing through developments without a proper planning and appeals system. There is also the cost of the houses. People are also resisting taking corporation houses because of the lack of proper effective estate management and speedy action against antisocial tenants, who are destroying communities because they are getting away with it.
The Minister of State has already answered that question. It is very much on our agenda. There is a change in focus. We have given significant resources to the voluntary sector in the last two years, this year in particular. Voluntary housing groups have strict training in advance in regard to tenancies and organisational management. This will have an impact across the country. It is a much more thorny question to deal with existing estates, especially large estates in the major urban centres. We have asked for submissions from local authorities and they are now being considered.
The committee may have a hearing on this matter in the future. There is a need for a new law which allows the authority or corporation to bind disruptive tenants to the peace. The courts are reluctant to evict them at the moment — evidence has to be found etc.
There also has to be some co-ordination with the Garda. Distant Garda stations are outmoded in today's circumstances. We need sentry type substations in trouble spots where there is a round the clock Garda presence. That needs to be co-ordinated urgently, otherwise some of these communities will be destroyed.
I would welcome it if the committee would look at that. Any suggestions it would make would certainly receive careful consideration from my Department.
I have a few questions to put to the Minister on the housing aspects of the subhead. On the grants to local authorities in respect of accommodation provided by voluntary housing bodies, it has been brought to my attention that some local authorities are interpreting the circular rules on this matter as meaning that when a body provides voluntary housing, it must cater for a variety of categories of persons in need of housing. If a group wants to provide houses for the elderly, for instance, as one category of persons, some local authorities are refusing to do so by saying that there must be a mix of houses. From a response I got previously, I found out that this is not the case, but a circular clarifying that situation would be in order.
I confirm that is the case. As the Deputy has said, they can provide it exclusively for any group. If they want it for the elderly they can have it for the elderly, or if they want a number of houses for homeless people they can do that exclusively. It is explicit in the social housing programme.
Perhaps the Minister would do me the favour of putting that in a letter to me.
I have limited experience of the improvement works to dwellings occupied by applicants on the local authority housing waiting lists. It is not utilised fully, but I would be prepared to wait 12 months to see whether the new social housing policy is undertaken more flexibly by the local authorities.
With regard to the disabled person's grant scheme, I ask the Minister to look at it again to see if he could offer flexibility to people on medical grounds. In some respects one would nearly need to be in a coffin to qualify for the disabled person's grant.
On subhead B2, grants for the renewal or repair of thatched roofs of houses, it has been suggested to me that because of the cost of doing a proper job on thatched houses the Minister might amend that scheme. The amount is £2,000 or £3,000 that can only be claimed every seven years. It has been suggested, because of the cost, to make the grant about £8,000 and change the period between grant applications to 15 years. A good thatching job will last that long.
With regard to housing travellers, I agree that local authority members will have to act responsibly. We must have a national framework. One of the big difficulties in providing a halt or housing for travellers is that people may say it is only encouraging them by providing the facility for them and more people will come along. There will have to be rules for the community and the travellers. I will remark on the members of the Minister of State's party in the local authority in Meath when she is present. She could look to members of her own party in County Meath to live up to her admonition.
The previous speaker referred to the disabled person's grant operated by local authorities. I appeal for some greater flexibility for local authorities. I am dealing with a case of a mildly mentally handicapped woman whose elderly parents are extremely anxious that provision be made for her in the future. They are seeking a grant from the local authority but have been refused on the grounds that mental handicap does not come within the terms of the scheme.
The applicants had intended to provide some type of independent living quarters. The interpretation being applied at present is that the scheme relates specifically to physical handicap. Perhaps the Minister would clarify the degree of discretion available. Is the local authority in question misinterpreting the scheme?
Greater flexibility should be allowed to local authorities on this matter. There is considerable anxiety among the parents of handicapped children, particularly mild mental handicap, who have been in a position to date to provide for and accommodate their children with them. They are concerned about provision for them in the future, particularly where another member of the family is likely to inherit the family home. Some type of independent living quarters could be provided with assistance from the disabled persons grant scheme.
Representing a county that initiated the thatching grant as a county council grant I would say that the Deputy has made a fair point and I have spoken to thatchers about it. It is something I will work on to see if I can incorporate it into next year's Estimates.
I have dealt with cases of mental handicap who have got disabled persons grants. It is the degree of requirement to change a house that is involved. If somebody has a physical disability and a ramp needs to be put in, a doorway broadened or a downstairs toilet put in, it is much clearer. Whatever is needed physically to adapt an accommodation to suit somebody who has any impairment can be considered.
There is no prohibition under the regulations preventing somebody who is mentally handicapped from availing of the disabled persons grant. It is available to them. It depends on what works need to be carried out. The local authority will look at the particular work to see if it will enhance the living conditions of an individual. If it does not, it will not be grant aided.
A case was put to me this week where one elderly woman was being looked after by her family and got the disabled persons grant for an extension. A local Deputy was asked whether if she moved to a different county to another relative they would get the grant also. It could become be a rent-a-disabled-person system whereby everybody could get their extensions. While that is not common, there has been a considerable demand for the disabled persons grant generally.
The general point made about mental handicap is of concern to me. When I was Minister for Health expenditure on mental handicap supports was increased by £25 million last year. A lot of that was to provide residential and long term care to cater for the people who are concerned about providing accommodation for their children after their time. Thankfully, the life expectancy of the mentally handicapped has increased significantly over the last ten years.
I concur with what the Minister has said. That development has been welcome. It has been targeted largely at a group who are not in a position to provide for themselves. I am referring to people who are able to live independently working in sheltered employment.
In each health board area there is a mental handicap co-ordinating committee. It makes applications on an individual case basis for service improvements to cater for the individual client. There is not a huge number. Every individual client should be identified and their needs in terms of residential care and home support, which is more desirable if people can live at home, are catered for under the service improvements in that development.
I know the Minister recently approved the tenant purchase scheme with the £3,000 discount. Is there any hope of extending the ten year provision to 15 years for long term tenants? Is there any hope of a tenant purchase scheme for flat dwellers? In estate management, the best way to settle down a community is to give it a share in the property, whether it is 1 per cent or 10 per cent. Many of the flats in Dublin are like transit camps and if the residents had a share in them it would help to stabilise them.
It is a new scheme and we will have to see how it works. It is generous — 30 per cent plus £3,000. The counterpoint is that there are a lot of people setting up nowadays who are marginal in income terms and who try to get a building society loan. We want to get some value back from the significant capital investment. The give-away days are over. The scheme is good value and I think there will be a take up. We have balanced it as carefully as we can.
In relation to the sell off of non-family type accommodation or flats, two points arise. Regarding housing accommodation for the elderly, it is not a good policy to allow elderly people to buy it and take it out of the housing stock so that the family inherit it. I do not think that is what you have in mind. The problem with selling off flats is estate management. How do you deal with a block of flats where some are privately owned and some are publicly owned? Many communal services are provided, so how is that going to be managed unless you sell off everything? There is a huge significant cost involved. There is a British model whereby they simply privatise the entire block and sell it off to a company, but that has generally been an unsatisfactory experience.
In an apartment block one owner might own ten, 12 or 14 apartments and be renting them out. So you have tenants of that landlord among owners of other blocks, yet the management company runs the block for the whole lot. Why can the corporation not act both as the manager and lessor of those unpurchased apartments? I do not see that as an unsuperable problem.
It is not insuperable, but we have a convincing argument that it is expensive. However, it is something that we could review again.
There are huge insurance implications in the area of common property.
That is a problem.
We spent a lot of time trying to devise a model for Cork because there is a fairly significant demand among people to buy out their flats. It is a worthwhile and genuine demand which should be taken account of, but it is not easy to find a formula.
No, it is not easy. In fairness to the people who have devised, worked on and analysed this, the recommendation is that it is just not practicable.
Under subhead C.2, would the Minister consider extending the local improvement schemes, designed for the improvement of non-public roads, to cover class 3 roads in rural areas along the lines of last year's pilot scheme?
There is a 16 per cent increase for the Environmental Protection Agency, which is doing more and more each year because the Minister has introduced the IPCs for a greater range of industries. The Department of Finance would shoot us for saying this, but the Environmental Protection Agency must get whatever money it needs. We will head into a disaster if it is not independent and seen to be so. A strong case needs to be made for additional resources for the Environmental Protection Agency in the light of the Waste Bill and other legislation. Whatever support the Minister needs on that it will be forthcoming because a lot is at stake in ensuring that the Environmental Protection Agency is seen to be an independent organisation.
Does the Minister intend to launch the Dublin Transport Initiative report before it grows moss on it? Is planning work proceeding for the Dublin Port access tunnel? The Minister has made no statement on it, so can I presume that he is totally behind the statement of the last Minister?
Things change.
The answer to Deputy Dempsey's first question is yes, I will look at that again. As regards Deputy Dempsey's second question on the Environmental Protection Agency, I totally agree with him. It has a good home in Wexford and now needs to ensure that it has the necessary resources.
It needs holiday homes in places like Cork.
There is a double source of income, although we have increased the Exchequer income. With the increased licensing provision the income from licensing is significant and growing, so it has independent income. It must be, and will be seen to be, an independent agency of high standards. On that basis I will be making the case of the Minister for Finance that it must be treated on that basis for any future staffing requirement. I welcome Deputy Dempsey's comments and support. As regards the final question on the DTI, I certainly hope to launch the initiative before the summer recess. I will be bringing it to Government very shortly and publishing it thereafter. I am committed to all the major infrastructural initiatives already under way including the Dublin Port access tunnel, about which there were very detailed discussions by the previous Government, as you know.
In summing up I want to thank the Minister. We have had some significant statements today. The most important statement, which seems to have attracted widespread support on all sides of the committee, is that the question of local government reforms is urgent, and that impinges on the question of finance. We would be doing a great service if we could address that question. I welcome the Minister's comments on that subject and I hope it is something that we are all willing to embrace.
It is necessary, not just for local government but also for employment, if we are going to talk about some form of new local authority fund-raising ability that it should be offset by reductions in central taxation. A direct linkage to reductions in income tax would help our employment situation as well as helping local democracy.
The committee should have hearings later in the year on the question of local government funding. Linked to that is the question of value for money, because there is enormous waste in local authorities. One thing that has annoyed me for years is the cost and inefficiency of housing maintenance. We must look at cheaper, better and more effective ways of doing things, even if it means privatising or doing it by contract rather than the present wholly inefficient method. We must examine the whole question of local authority efficiency, which is linked to the question of finance.
The Minister's announcement that he will publish the DTI report in the next few weeks will be very welcome in Dublin.
The Minister's indication that he wants to delegate as much as possible to the local authorities is also very welcome, and he has already taken some steps in that direction. I only hope that the local authorities take advantage of it. When the licensing of taxis was delegated to Dublin Corporation they balked and did not face up to their responsibilities, so it was taken back to them.
You were chairman at the time.
I beg your pardon. I was chairman for two years but I was not chairman when we had that power. We did not have that power. In order to spend money from the parking meter fund, Dublin Corporation has to apply for permission, but that should be delegated. I will return to the question of suburban village renewal, which is a serious question in Dublin.
It is a crucial question.
Yes. The Minister's invitation for our thoughts on the question of estate management and how to deal with the anti-social behaviour of some tenants is very apt. It is a big issue in Dublin because a small number of people are destroying and making unliveable certain parts of our city. Consequently, people want to move out.
They are evicted in the morning and have to be re-housed in the afternoon.
Very often they are not evicted. I thank the Minister for being so forthcoming with us and I congratulate him on the way in which he has discharged his functions so far. I hope that when we come to this Estimate next year a lot more progress will again have been made.
The Select Committee adjourned at 5.30 p.m.
