Other Questions.
6 Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will make a statement on the recent CERRIE report into radiation risks in the United Kingdom with particular reference to Sellafield. [27550/04]
View answerThe committee examining radiation risks of internal emitters, CERRIE — I apologise for the use of acronyms in this reply — was established in the United Kingdom in 2001 in response to concerns that the models accepted by Government Departments and regulatory bodies in the United Kingdom substantially underestimate the risks to human health from internal radiation. Internal radiation in the human body is caused by radioactive matter which has been inhaled or ingested.
The committee's remit was to consider these models in light of recent studies and identify any further research considered necessary. As with most issues, there is a wide range of opinion in the scientific community on the issues under consideration. This range of views was reflected in the composition of the committee. The committee's report, published on 20 October 2004, has been examined by my Department and by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland which advises my Department on these matters.
The committee examined in some detail the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiation Protection. These recommendations form the basis of radiation protection standards in use worldwide, including in the European Union. They are also the standards used in national legislation. The recommendations are under review by the ICRP and new recommendations are due to be published in 2005.
The UK committee highlighted a number of concerns regarding uncertainties in the use of certain methodologies by the ICRP and recommended that these be reassessed. The majority view of the committee was, however, that the available biological evidence does not point to the need for a fundamental change in radiological protection standards. The RPII, the relevant Irish authority, agrees with this view. I have been shown a copy of the report, which could be reasonably described as a selection of essays written in difficult English. Incidentally, it makes no reference to Ireland.
With regard to epidemiological evidence, the committee concluded that the evidence is compelling that moderate and high levels of exposure to internally incorporated radionuclides produce a raised risk of adverse health effects, which is not a surprise.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Little consensus could be reached, however, for lower levels of exposure. CERRIE concluded that epidemiological studies were only of value when they were conducted to a high standard and subject to both ethical and peer review. The RPII concurs with these views concerning the conduct of epidemiological studies.
From an Irish viewpoint, the most important section of the CERRIE report concerns its findings on Sellafield and Dounreay, Scotland. The report accepts the finding of many studies showing excesses of childhood leukaemia around Sellafield and the nuclear facility in Dounreay, Scotland. According to the report, the majority of CERRIE members did not accept that the evidence showed the risk of cancer in general was increased near nuclear sites.
The report does not make reference to the radiation risks associated with Sellafield as regards the Irish population. The RPII has advised my Department that the findings of the report do not change, for better or worse, the RPII's assessment of the radiation risks associated with Sellafield for the Irish population.
Two members of the CERRIE committee stepped down and prepared a minority report on radiation risks of internal emitters. I have asked the RPII to examine this minority report also and report to me.
A separate report was also published on 20 October by CERRIE's parent committee on medical aspects of radiation in the environment, COMARE. The COMARE report gives a response to the CERRIE report and provides advice to United Kingdom Ministers highlighting, in particular, the internal radiation health risks presented by radon. These reports will be considered by the relevant United Kingdom Ministers and I will await with interest the outcome of that consideration.
I am disappointed with the Minister's response, for which I thank him. Professor Goodhead, the chairman of the committee examining radiation risks of internal emitters, stated that the danger from such emitters may be ten times higher than previously believed for children living near nuclear plants, although it may not be as significant for adults. I welcome the pressure the Government put on the British Government and, in particular, British Nuclear Fuels and hope it will continue. The Opposition and the Government are united on this issue. In light of Professor Goodhead's report, will the Government put additional pressure on the British Government to reduce discharges from Sellafield?
With a new nuclear decommissioning authority set to move into Sellafield to decommission much of the plant, the Government's hand will be strengthened as regards the pressure it can exert on the British Government to reduce all emissions from Sellafield, notwithstanding the points the Minister made regarding international standards.
I firmly agree. The Deputy knows my views on Sellafield, which are on public record and have not changed because I have changed my status from backbench Deputy to Minister. The reports in question, a set of essays, contain contradictory material.
With respect, a consensus has emerged that internal radiation is at least ten times as dangerous for children as previously believed. There is no disputing that fact.
I do not disagree with any scientific element in the report — I am making a general point. The report states: "Most environment groups and some scientists have not accepted the view that the occurrence of a pronounced leukaemia cluster [in the village of Seascale close to Sellafield] adjacent to one of the world's largest sources of radioactive discharges was due to coincidence or to some other unidentified factor." As I stated, it is a complex report. As regards the Deputy's question, I will continue to apply the pressure exerted by my predecessors to ensure that some sanity pertains in all matters relating to Sellafield.
7 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will raise the issue of air security around Britain’s nuclear installations following reports of more than 100 breaches of no-fly zones at these facilities, including two at Sellafield, over the past five years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27544/04]
View answer12 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he has satisfied himself that the no-fly zone surrounding the Sellafield nuclear facility is sufficient to prevent a major terrorist attack or accident; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27543/04]
View answer21 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he has satisfied himself with the general level of security at Sellafield; his views on whether the possibility of an accident or incident is of a sufficiently low level; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27545/04]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 12 and 21 together.
Due to the risk posed to Ireland by the potential transboundary effects of an accident or incident, including a terrorist attack by aircraft or otherwise at Sellafield, the security arrangements and procedures in place at Sellafield have been a particular concern of this and previous Government. These concerns are repeatedly raised both by direct correspondence and in face to face meetings with my ministerial counterparts and other United Kingdom Ministers. These concerns are raised at official level in meetings between my Department and its United Kingdom counterparts.
The UK authorities have given assurances that they are satisfied the arrangements for ensuring security in the UK's civil nuclear industry are robust, that additional measures put in place since September 2001 to reinforce security are appropriate and that these security arrangements are subject to continual review. I understand there is a press report, perhaps prompted by these questions, in a British newspaper today which refers to an additional £20 million being spent on security at Sellafield. The UK has also indicated that the Royal Air Force maintains a high state of readiness in the air defence of the UK, including the defence of particularly sensitive targets and its state of readiness is kept under constant review.
Assurances have been given that the UK Ministry of Defence's low flying directorate thoroughly investigates complaints of military aircraft breaching the air exclusion zones surrounding civil nuclear facilities, as does the Civil Aviation Authority which has responsibility for investigating such complaints about civil aircraft. The assurances and information on nuclear security issues from the UK authorities are received by us in good faith. Ireland understands that sensitive security information must be guarded and that dissemination of such information must be contained in a highly secure manner.
However, our legitimate concerns could be met even more satisfactorily through the development of an agreed, structured and meaningful system between the UK and Ireland for the exchange of security sensitive information without compromising the security needs and concerns of the UK. This point has been emphasised in exchanges with the UK. This House and the nation can be assured that I will continue to press for better information in this regard.
I welcome the Minister's assurances. This is a matter on which the Government and Opposition can work together. Question No. 7 refers to the no-fly zone at Sellafield. I understand the zone is less than 500 metres. It would take just milliseconds for an aeroplane, fully laden and with intent, to get into Sellafield. If it were aimed at where the radioactive waste is stored, it would cause immediate fatalities and problems in Sellafield and if the wind were blowing towards Ireland, there would be a significant and adverse impact, initially on our agriculture, on our eastern boundaries. Will the Minister again put pressure on the British Government? Will he, through his membership of the International Atomic Energy Agency, insist that the information on security — the British Government cannot and I do not expect it to give such details to Ireland — be given to the International Atomic Energy Agency? The agency could be the honest broker and benchmark it for us. It is the international body with responsibility for all matters relating to radiation. However, the significant point about the radioactive waste——
There is a one minute time limit on supplementary questions.
Three questions are being taken together.
The Deputy can ask three supplementary questions with a time limit of one minute on each.
Thank you. I am not sure of the procedure.
The Deputy will have plenty of time to ask further questions.
I accept the validity of the point made by Deputy O'Dowd. The consequences of a catastrophic failure or a terrorist event in Sellafield could be horrific for this country. I agree with the Deputy. When nations decided to go this route they opened a Pandora's box. The Deputy is correct about the no-fly zone. Even a substantial no-fly zone causes problems and the narrower it gets, the more improbable it is that it will work. I do not disagree about the necessity for some type of international oversight. I said previously that it would help to assuage, although not dismiss, our fears.
The construction of the roof of the building in which the highly active tanks are stored in Sellafield is such that the possibility of an aircraft hitting it at high speed was not considered. It was excluded from the construction capacity of Sellafield to withstand a terrorist attack. People believed it could not happen. However, it happened in New York when the aeroplanes hit the World Trade Centre and it could happen in Sellafield. Is the Minister satisfied with the general level of security at Sellafield? There are 12,000 to 14,000 people employed there. It is easy to get access to the site. There are many gates and a reinforced chain-link fence around the area. However, I believe Sellafield is not secure. If there is a determined attempt by terrorists to get into the site, they could do it. Has the Minister considered that there is a railway line parallel to the site and it is not beyond the capacity of al-Qaeda to take over a train and load it with explosives which could be exploded in the heart of Sellafield? What representations will he make to the British Government about this issue?
I do not disagree with anything the Deputy said. There is no such thing as absolute security. One need only recall that in September 2001 the Pentagon was attacked. It was supposed to have the benefit of protection, including ground to air missiles and so forth, but none of it succeeded in preventing the horror. There is a huge risk and that fact should not be diminished. The validity of our case is self-evident and everything the Deputy said is common sense. I have made the point repeatedly to British colleagues. The Deputy can be assured that I will take every opportunity to indicate to the British authorities that we have continuing and valid concerns about this issue.
Has the Minister been officially informed of any breaches of the no-fly zone around Sellafield and, if so, how many? Has he been informed of any threat of a terrorist attack on Sellafield? If so, what was the number and nature of such threats?
Nothing has been brought to my attention in the past four weeks but I presume the Deputy is referring to the office of the Minister. There have been 100 breaches of the no-fly zone area, which is a substantial number and indicates the validity of our concerns. These are concerns which we have raised with the British authorities. With regard to the second question, I am not sure if any such notification has been received. It might not be given if there is a security element in it. That indicates the validity of the point made by Deputy O'Dowd, and by other Members from time to time, about the necessity for an international organisation to which these matters could be reported and through which risk could be assessed. I will ask in the Department if there is a specific instance of such notification and I will communicate it to the Deputy.
Has the Minister a view on the risk to citizens on this island posed by radiation emanating from Sellafield in the event of such a breach of security or an attack? What would be the level of risk? What is he doing about it?
What successive Governments have been doing and the pressures that have been applied through various agencies are on the public record. The risk to this country would be substantial. Clearly, if there was a catastrophic failure, it would cause untold environmental hazards for this country. The Taoiseach has said on more than one occasion that Sellafield is the biggest environmental hazard and danger facing this country. It is not something we should over-emphasise but it is not to be underestimated either. I will do neither during my term in office.
When the third aeroplane involved in the attack on 11 September 2001 crashed into a field near Washington, it was reported that the aeroplane was headed in the direction of either a large dam or a nuclear power station. In his discussions and representations, both through the International Atomic Energy Agency and directly with the British Government, will the Minister stress that there is real and present danger to people in Britain and in this country if a plane were to hit Sellafield? That is the real worry, not the fear of an accident in the operational structure of Sellafield. It is not built to withstand the type of attack which happened on 11 September 2001.
The Deputy is correct. It was suggested, for example, that the third plane was heading towards the Capitol Building and there is also speculation as to how the plane was brought down. This illustrates the validity of our common concern in this area. I had a short social meeting with my UK counterpart and I will continue to emphasise this point on every possible occasion.
I thank the Minister.
8 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the action his Department has taken following the European Commission’s initial warning to the Government over the Derrybrien wind farm project in County Galway following the landslide there in October 2003; the measures he has taken to ensure that environmental impact assessments for such projects are improved following the Commission’s statement that the EIAs for Derrybrien were manifestly deficient; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27334/04]
View answerOn 15 July 2004, the Government received a detailed letter from the European Commission in regard to implementation of the directive on environmental impact assessment in Ireland. The letter lists a number of individual cases, including the Derrybrien wind farm project. In view of the complexity of the issues involved, Ireland sought an extension of the period for reply to the Commission until 14 November 2004. The Department is now finalising a comprehensive response to the Commission's letter. On the basis of legal advice, my Department does not divulge details of correspondence with the European Commission in connection with EU complaints.
My Department issued guidelines for planning authorities on wind farm development as far back as 1996. The guidelines noted that "wind farm developments, both during the construction and operational phases, may impact significantly on the ecology, archaeology, geology and heritage of an area". They recommended, inter alia, that an assessment of the impact of development on the known or likely geological interest of a site should be made.
In August 2004 my predecessor issued for public consultation draft guidelines for planning authorities in regard to wind energy development, updating the 1996 guidelines. To be fair, the 1996 guidelines could not have envisaged what took place. The recent guidelines update policy on the siting and design of wind farms and include strengthened recommendations on the consideration of geotechnical issues. Some 65 submissions were received by the closing date for the receipt of submissions on 30 September 2004 and are now under consideration by my Department. It was the intention to publish the finalised guidelines in early 2005 but I intend to publish them as soon as is possible.
Responsibility for ensuring the adequacy of an environmental impact statement submitted with a planning application rests with the planning authority in the first instance and, in the event of an appeal, with An Bord Pleanála. Under section 72 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992, the EPA issued in 2002 guidelines on the information to be contained in environmental impact statements. These guidelines and the accompanying detailed advice notes on current practice have been updated and are available.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
These guidelines, and accompanying detailed advice notes on current practice in the preparation of environmental impact statements, updated draft guidelines and accompanying detailed advice notes issued by the EPA in 1995. The Act provides that those preparing and assessing environmental impact statements must have regard to the EPA guidelines. The guidelines and advice notes address issues in regard to impacts on soil and geology.
How does the Minister respond to the essence of the point made by the Commission that the environmental impact assessments of the development appear to have been manifestly deficient, having failed to provide any adequate information on the geophysical risks associated with the project? Does the Minister accept or reject this assertion by the Commission?
I neither accept nor reject it because the issue is under consideration in the Department. I stated that the tendency is not to divulge details of correspondence with the Commission in connection with EU complaints. I will seek to publish the response as soon as it is conclusive because serious issues have been raised. Even if the Commission had not raised this matter, I am familiar with the events at Derrybrien and know they must be taken seriously. I will respond to the Commission and intend to make as much information available as possible to the Deputy and any other Member of the House.
I thank the Minister for his response. However, this issue is in the public domain. While the Minister stated the correspondence from the Commission related to a number of matters, I am concerned with this specific matter. Was the EIA adequate, in the Minister's view, or can the Minister assure the House it was adequate?
I stated we are working on new guidelines which will obviously--——
The Minister should not mind the guidelines. He should stick with the matter of the EIA.
We are working on new guidelines and responding to the issues regarding the EIA. The Deputy will accept the events were unforeseen and novel. We must make certain, rather than carving out--——
The Minister is slipping around more than the bog was.
I am not slipping around more than the bog because it was a substantial area of bog. I have seen pictures of the events and I accept the Deputy's point that it is a serious issue. The guidelines will deal with it. We must learn from experience in this area, as with so much else.
We all saw the frightening images on television of the bog and land slide, the pollution of rivers and resulting fish kills. While the Minister says it is a complex matter, it is very simple. Were the directives issued by his Department in 1996 implemented?
In so far as I can answer, the answer is yes. However, they have been strengthened. The idea of the draft guidelines issued in 2004 was to strengthen the existing guidelines, which were produced in a different time.
9 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if his Department has a role in investigations into cross-Border sham recycling operations following the interception of six trucks in Northern Ireland containing hundreds of tonnes of illegal waste from the Republic; the efforts his Department is making, in conjunction with the Garda Síochána, to clamp down on cross-Border illegal dumping rackets; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27325/04]
View answer54 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the measures his Department has taken to prevent the illegal export of domestic waste across the Border with Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27568/04]
View answer98 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the level of resources employed to prevent illegal dumping; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27572/04]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 54, and 98 together.
The reported incidents of illegal cross-Border movements of waste into Northern Ireland, which by their nature are difficult to detect and quantify, have been discussed at ministerial level within the framework of overall North-South co-operation on common issues. On foot of these discussions, a high level meeting was held on 21 May 2004, involving representatives from my Department and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, as well as from local authorities in both jurisdictions, the office of environmental enforcement, the Garda Síochána, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the respective customs services. At this meeting very useful exchanges took place, particularly in regard to the scope for securing better inter-agency co-operation on enforcement, on which there has been improvement. I am confident this engagement, which will continue, will yield more effective enforcement operations in the short and medium term.
Illegal waste activities are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Those involved are criminals and, on my watch, I intend the law of the land will be applied to the letter as well as the spirit. The effective operation of the regulatory regime for the waste sector is a key priority. To this end, a number of significant initiatives designed to achieve more vigorous enforcement of the waste code in this jurisdiction have been introduced. These are designed to support the activities of local authorities, which are the primary enforcement authorities.
I will provide some examples. First, the Protection of the Environment Act 2003 provides new enforcement powers and increases the maximum fines for contraventions of the waste code. Conviction on indictment for an offence under the Act now carries a maximum fine of €15 million, as well as a term of imprisonment of up to ten years. These are severe penalties and I hope, where appropriate, they will be applied in full by the courts.
Second, we have completed the establishment of a new office of environmental enforcement, located within the Environmental Protection Agency. While it has a wide remit, the OEE is focused on waste related enforcement activities in its early stages and is already operational in this area. I pay tribute to its staff because they are dealing with a thuggish, criminal element, some of whom have paramilitary connections. We know of the risks young staff are taking.
Third, the importance of providing additional resources to underpin the waste enforcement effort has been acknowledged. In this regard, some €7 million from the environment fund has been allocated to local authorities to support the first year of a major five-year programme of local authority waste enforcement activities. I take a most serious view of these events. I have firsthand experience of criminal activity in County Wicklow when parts of the county were despoiled by dumpers. This new development is sinister and will be dealt with seriously.
I thank the Minister for his reply and I accept his commitment that he will pursue illegal dumping of waste. Was any licensed waste collection operator, or its trucks, involved in this activity? Is any company, holding a contract from a local authority for the collection of waste, involved in this activity, either directly through use of its trucks, or indirectly, in the waste being sourced from it?
I am aware of some of the comments made on the contents of these trucks. However, I do not have the specific details on whether those involved in this activity have waste permits. I will check on the matter and communicate the information to Deputy Gilmore. Regarding the trucks, I will check this too and communicate it to the Deputy.
Any holder of a contract from a local authority for the collection of waste who may have been involved in this activity should lose the contract. Any holder of a waste licence involved in this activity should have it withdrawn. I agree with what the Minister said about the criminal and paramilitary elements. However, two thirds of the waste collection services in the State are now in private hands. If any of these companies are involved, they should lose their contracts and licences.
I do not disagree with what Deputy Gilmore has said. If there has been knowing criminal misbehaviour, the Deputy is right. The investigations have yet to be finalised. On my watch I intend that the law in this area will be rigorously enforced.
The office of enforcement in the Environmental Protection Agency has said that it will be a year before it can adequately deal with this matter. Will more resources be given to the Garda and the Criminal Assets Bureau and more co-operation sought with the Police Service of Northern Ireland to deal with this matter? This is a multimillion euro rip-off. Some €240 is paid to move a tonne of waste from the South across the Border where it is dumped illegally for approximately €30. In many cases, it is exported to Scotland.
I acknowledge the Minister's expertise in this area. The Environmental Protection Agency was forced to give a direction to Wicklow and Kildare County Councils in respect of their lack of commitment to its directives on the operation of illegal waste dumps in both counties. Will the Minister insist that the county managers from Wicklow and Kildare County Councils meet him to discuss their non-compliance of these directives? Does the Minister agree it is a shame and a disgrace that local authorities are not complying with requests from the enforcement office of the Environmental Protection Agency regarding illegal waste dumps?
I agree. My views on what has happened in County Wicklow are on record. I have had face-to-face contacts with management in Wicklow County Council over the years.
Will the Minister demand a meeting with the county managers of Wicklow and Kildare County Councils?
When I make contact with the Environmental Protection Agency and am satisfied that it is not in any way frustrated——
On a point of information, the county managers have been given a direction that if they do not comply with the Environmental Protection Agency, they will be brought to court for non-compliance.
My view is that all local authorities should and must comply.
Will the Minister demand a meeting with the county managers of Wicklow and Kildare County Councils and insist they comply?
If that is necessary.
It is necessary.
This dialogue is getting nowhere. If the non-compliance continues I will seek to ensure it stops.
Does the Minister not believe it should be carpeted now?
The comment on the Environmental Protection Agency requiring a year to investigate the matter was made by a staff member at a particular point. I am not criticising the young man in question but it was made on camera. Interagency co-operation is at the highest possible level. If there is any room for improvement I will encourage it. However, I do not believe there is any deficiency there.
Does the Minister accept that illegal cross-Border dumping of waste undermines the efforts made by those recycling? Galway city has reduced the amount of waste going to landfill by over 50% over the last several years. People will now realise that the work they are doing, separating and segregating waste in five ways is simply being illegally disposed of by illegal, and perhaps some licensed, dumpers. What action will the Minister take to eliminate this practice that undermines the efforts to recycle, reuse and reduce waste?
Deputy McCormack is right because people do go to considerable trouble to recycle, reuse and reduce waste. I know people who must travel from Bray to Wicklow to avail of recycling facilities. If widescale breaches of any operator, particularly a licensed one, were found, it would create cynicism and have a devastating impact on the high levels of recycling we are achieving. If it is proved that a licensed operator is involved in this activity, I will take a most serious view.
Will the Minister let the courts find this out?
Yes.
The Minister is agreeing with 90% of the statements from this side of the House. It is an interesting prospect. I welcome his preparedness to tackle these illegal operations. I hope the actions follow up as strongly as his words. An investigation was commenced concerning documents from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform finding their way into an illegal dump in County Tyrone. What progress has been made in the investigation and when will it be completed?
I do not have any information on that specific item. I remember the press comment at the time. I am so agreeable because there is much common sense in this discussion. I do not believe a monopoly exists on one side of the House on this issue.
My personal attitude is that if we operate together we will be far better than if we operate individually. I assure Deputies O'Dowd, Gilmore and other spokespersons that, in so far as I can, I will operate a very open attitude, as I did when I was Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs. It paid big dividends for Ireland when we brought all the talents of this House together, and the same will apply in this context. We do not have any political differences on the issues with which we are dealing, whether it is Sellafield, illegal dumping or other activities.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will not end up in jail then.
The Minister should keep an eye out for that file from the equestrian federation.
10 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the funding made available by his Department to Cork County Council with reference to the disabled person’s grant and the essential repair grant scheme; the directions given by his Department with reference to these schemes to the council in 2003 and 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27445/04]
View answerThe capital allocation to Cork County Council, covering three local authorities, Cork north, south and west, in 2003 for the payment of disabled person's and essential repairs grants was €6,409,000. This amount was broken down between an initial allocation of €6,009,000, an additional allocation of €700,000 to Cork south and a saving of €300,000 by Cork West County Council.
The council's total expenditure on the schemes in 2003 was €6,646,491. A capital allocation of €7.315 million was made by my Department to Cork County Council for 2004. This was based on the council's estimated demand of €8 million for 2004 and its expenditure level of €6.6 million in 2003.
My Department's letter of allocation advised that where the notified allocation was likely to be either inadequate or surplus to requirements, the Department should be informed so as to facilitate reallocation of the funds and maximise the effectiveness of the programme.
My Department was informed by the council in a letter dated 21 September 2004 that payments in 2004 in the council areas of Cork north, south and west would total €2.3 million, although the allocation was €7.3 million. The stated reason for this low level of payments was the suspension of approvals by the council in 2003 due to financial constraints, which had the effect of delaying the subsequent commencement and-or completion of works in 2004. A new disabled person's grant scheme was prepared by Cork County Council during 2003 which has now been adopted and is being implemented.
It has been made clear to the council that under-spending of this magnitude is of serious concern to my Department, given the need for assistance under the schemes countrywide. The council has indicated it has now begun approving grants on the basis of the revised scheme and that this will be reflected in the payments for 2005.
The original provision for disabled person's and essential repairs grant schemes in 2004 was €65 million, an increase of 12% on the final allocation of €58 million for 2003. A further €7.7 million has been allocated to local authorities that sought increases in the past two months, thus increasing the total allocation to €72.7 million. I am confident the majority of local authorities will spend their full allocation this year.
The Minister of State referred to the suspension of the scheme. Was the suspension initiated by the Department or was it solely the decision of the council? Will he provide more detail on why the scheme was suspended and for how long? The council is unable to meet its allocation this year. Will the Minister of State guarantee this will not affect future allocations?
The administration of schemes is a matter for each local authority while we look after the general framework of the schemes. The Department did not order the suspension last year. Five years ago the maximum grant to an individual under the scheme increased from in the region of €10,000 to €20,000. Nationally, the number of approvals under the scheme trebled in the past five or six years and the level of payment increased almost sixfold, which is an extraordinary increase.
Adjacent counties with similar age profiles give this matter different priority and put different resources into it. The Department pays two thirds of the grant while local authorities provide one third from revenue receipts. Some local authorities were allowed to borrow their one third contribution. In recent years we have tried to bring home to them that they should not do this because they are building up problems for themselves. The provision of a one third contribution remains the function of local authorities.
Did the direction to cease borrowing come from the Department? Was it a big factor in the suspension of Cork County Council's schemes?
Yes. We informed councils that this is not capital expenditure, it is current expenditure, of which the Department provides two thirds and councils provide one third. In recent years we have brought this point home to local authorities. As I said, some have been better organised than others in managing their affairs. Cork County Council asked for €8 million. We asked all local authorities if they had made provision for their contributions in their estimates. That was the basis on which it applied for €8 million. We were not very pleased when we heard in September that it was not just shy 5% or 10% but that it spent €2.3 million when the allocation was €7.3 million.
This will not be held against the council in future. I have seen letters sent out by local authorities which imply that cutbacks are being effected and that this, that and the other thing are in store. Overall expenditure on this scheme has rocketed, as has spending on the housing aid for the elderly scheme, where we increased this year's allocation. I was not too pleased with Cork this year but we will not hold it against it, provided it makes allocation in future. That is the message Deputy Stanton should give to councillors, they must provide for their one third contribution.
Written answers follow Adjournment debate.
