I welcome the opportunity to discuss this Estimate which is of colossal proportions. No ministry has such wide-ranging powers and duties as the Department of the Environment. Items in the Estimate affect all of us, not just national politicians but members of local authorities also. Firstly, I should like to deal with the question of roads. Roads can make or break industries and towns. The ease of access and travel can have a major bearing on the initial location of an industry. I want to plead with the Minister to see that road links to the south-east, in particular to the city of Waterford, are considerably improved. The condition of those roads has an adverse affect on the growth of this area. More money should be spent improving those links. There are many major road links from such cities as Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Sligo and, in Northern Ireland, from Derry and Belfast and there are many highways from those cities on which motorists and lorry drivers can travel with great ease. However, the road links to the south-east are diabolical.
In regard to this I should like to refer to a statement made by the planning officer of Waterford Corporation some weeks ago. He said that there was a general awareness in Waterford that the road links between the city and Dublin are notoriously bad and that major roadwork improvements are necessary prerequisites to the development of Waterford. He said that recent surveys carried out on behalf of the South-Eastern Regional Development Organisation indicated that the Dublin Road was in a dangerous condition, exhausting to travel on and unsatisfactory even for freight transport. The planning officer said that the regional manager of the IDA also criticised the inadequate road link as being damaging to Waterford's job creation chances. That is an indictment of the conditions of the road from Waterford to Dublin.
The Minister for Finance, in a Press release issued on 21 December, announced that a loan of £13.1 million had been granted by the European Investment Bank to the Government to help meet the cost of more than 200 improvement projects on at least 40 roads in the annual works programme for 1977 and 1978. The report says that the works to be carried out at a cost of about £26 million are concerned in particular with improving the national road network to establish better communication in industrial centres with areas where industrial development is being promoted and with centres of tourism.
The south-eastern region, Waterford in particular, comes within the ambit of that statement and we are asking for a sizeable portion of that grant which we were told was being awarded by the EEC last December. We are being hampered in our efforts to attract industry to Waterford city by lack of a proper highway system.
Another matter likely to affect growth and industrial expansion in that area is the lack of a new bridge across the River Suir. At present the bridge which connects Waterford with south Kilkenny and Dublin is quite old and dilapidated needing constant attention if it is not to be closed down. Built in 1911 it badly needs replacement. In 1968 Waterford Corporation sought a bridge order and ever since they have been preparing plans for a new bridge. Last August a final report was submitted to the Department of the Environment by Waterford Corporation and it is still awaiting sanction in the Minister's office. I plead with the Minister to give the sanction as soon as possible because that link is absolutely vital. If anything happened the existing bridge Waterford, for all practical purposes, would be cut off. The present bridge is anything but good. We are being left in the lurch in this matter because other centres are not experiencing the same difficulty with road transport problems. Limerick, according to recent Press reports, will shortly have its third bridge across the Shannon whereas we have not one decent bridge to serve the Waterford area. These matters are vital if areas are to have industrial growth because nobody wants to travel to an area with bumpy, twisting roads which is what we have at present.
I think the time has come for a new look at our road system, safety matters and traffic management. There is great need for the concept of by-passes. We are getting to them very slowly but we should press forward and develop a series of by-passes around many towns which at present are bottlenecks. Naas, in particular, is such a town; there are many others. These create great hardships on industrialists and motorists generally who are being delayed, losing considerable time and money. It is a negative approach to allow the problem to drift. By-passes should be created around towns which have not adequate roads through them.
The concept of a fly-over has not been developed yet. We should tackle this problem very soon. For instance, the Naas dual carriageway is a death-trap at present not merely due to the speed of vehicles on it but due to the crossing of vehicles, especially heavy lorries. That haphazard type of crossing is bound to lead to serious accidents and there have been some. There are accidents frequently at the Clondalkin turn-off. The sooner we get fly-overs the better. Obviously, there will be an enormous saving of life because there are fatal accidents every year due to vehicles crossing the dual carriageway.
The Traffic Warden Bill was introduced in 1975 and in the Estimate it is stated that a number of towns have implemented various aspects of the Act. Seven or eight towns are mentioned but the Act is not being utilised as was intended. It should be a major help in regulating traffic in congested towns. Many local authorities are shirking their responsibility in not implementing the Act. It is politically unpopular to suggest the appointment of traffic wardens who will summons local motorists but when a town has a major problem we should not be shy about doing it. The sooner the Act is fully implemented the better. We have only touched the surface at present.
A matter that comes within the ambit of the Minister and affects many major urban areas is that of boundary extension. I should like to see the Minister introduce legislation for a far easier way of extending boundaries because in many cases urban areas are being strangled because of lack of land and their need to expand. Two years ago we saw where Drogheda Corporation applied for an order to extend their area into County Meath. The whole exercise took something like seven years which seems extraordinarily long for what should be a relatively simple task. Many major urban centres need extra land urgently but because of friction with neighbouring local authorities the extension is not being granted. If it is to take in the region of seven years to get an order from the Minister for such an extension, endless problems will be caused. I believe Limerick has a major problem at present. The corporation want to extend into County Limerick and into County Clare but agreement cannot be reached. I understand. It seems ridiculous that development of a major urban area is held up because of disagreement or squabbling between neighbouring local authorities.
Waterford Corporation have petitioned the Minister for an extension of their boundary which is extremely badly needed. It should not take seven years to decide such a matter. At present Waterford city has overflowed into the neighbouring county of Kilkenny and into Waterford county itself. It is an unsatisfactory situation if this city is developing areas which are not under its control. Though members of local authorities in neighbouring counties may not be in full agreement with the extension, progress should not be stopped in this way and people should not be allowed to hinder the extending of boundaries provided they have had a reasonable hearing at the inquiry.
The Minister should make a point of speeding up the process of these inquiries. If he does not there will be wholesale delays in development with an adverse consequential effect on housing and industry. I appeal to the Minister to bring in legislation which would have this effect. The Minister for Local Government in the last Dáil promised that there would be a general local government Bill in the spring or early summer of 1977 which would simplify the task of getting boundary extensions, and I ask the Minister to expedite the introduction of such a Bill. I can understand the fears of local and national politicians who may think that if an area is taken out of their jurisdiction they will suffer in terms of votes and influence. In many cases such fears are unfounded because of constituency readjustments and they should not be allowed to interfere with boundary extensions which would be for the common good.
On the matter of housing, we all agree, no matter on which side of the House we sit, that the introduction of the new house grant was a good idea. The abolition of existing grants for people above a certain income level was not a very bright idea on the part of the previous Government and the introduction of this new grant is generally welcomed. Young people starting off in life should be given every incentive to own their own houses and this grant does just that, although there are anomalies which should be ironed out. For instance, if a contract had been signed prior to 26 May, the grant will not be given though the building may not have begun until after that date. I understand this applies only to groups of houses, but the matter should be opened up.
The increase in the new house grant from its previous maximum of £2,350 to £3,500 is also welcomed. The old figure was ridiculously low because hardly any workingman nowadays is earning less than £2,350. Unfortunately, I do not find the improvement sufficient. The majority of people wishing to build their houses have incomes above that level. We see it publicised daily that the average income for an industrial worker is £70 a week, almost exactly coinciding with the income limit for new house loans. I do not think that was the original idea when the loans scheme was introduced. It was meant to cater for most people except the rich and the very rich. Now, considerable numbers of working class people have incomes of more than the limit.
The matter of income in regard to local authority houses raises an interesting question. I should like the Minister to tell us if there is a national income limit laid down for approved applicants. In my county I have seen local authority officials demanding income certification from employers and if the income is in excess of £3,500, the same limit as for new house loans, applicants are being knocked off the housing lists. Is that national policy or is it being done by individual local authorities? It limits the numbers who can qualify for local authority houses.
The price of sites is inhibiting private housing greatly. The £1,000 grant is a help and an encouragement but the grant and the increased loan are more than offset by the cost of the site. A developed site costs about £4,000 and a working man who does not qualify for a local authority house because he is barely outside the limit is not in a position to pay that kind of money for a site. It is time that a national policy was devised whereby local authorities would be given capital from the Central Fund to buy large parcels of land suitable for development which could be sold to prospective house builders or to individuals wishing to build their own houses. We have the reputation of being the nation in Europe with the greatest number of privately-owned houses, but that position is rapidly declining because of the price of sites. The sooner the matter is tackled the better.
Returning to the matter of local authority housing, I am not satisfied that the best is being done for people badly in need of rehousing. In particular people with small families and single people find it exceedingly difficult to get accommodation from the local authorities. The natural tendency is to rehouse larger families, but this should not be done to the exclusion of old or single people who have inadequate housing or who are not housed. The present tendency to give them caravans or what are known as demountable dwellings has not proved a success; in fact it is a major failure. A lot of people have taken up residence in these dwellings for a couple of days or weeks and then left them. They are not the answer to the problem. The Department of the Environment should encourage county councils to build schemes in villages and towns for single old people and old couples.
A scheme known as section 30 of the Housing Act was being operated by the county councils on behalf of the Department of the Environment. According to recent literature which we received from the Department this scheme is being done away with. I would like clarification from the Minister on that point. Section 30 involved private houses which had fallen into bad disrepair and the occupants of which were not in a financial position to repair them themselves. Under section 30 the county council could carry out the repair work on behalf of the Department. Many people lived in bad conditions and were not able to fend for themselves. As the dwellings they occupied were not local authority houses nobody would do anything for them. Section 30, therefore, served a need. If it is gone has the Minister any plans to substitute something comparable for it?
In the Estimate reference is made to planning and in particular to An Bord Pleanála which was set up to deal with planning appeals. I welcomed the setting up of this board. Matters like planning permission should not be subject to political pressures and an independent board such as this is the ideal solution. It is not always easy to go along with the decisions of local authorities. Sometimes members of local authorities are quite annoyed by decisions handed down by their local planning officers, but generally speaking they are fairly reasonable people to deal with. Sometimes the annoyance of a local representative is due to the fact that he is being pressurised by a member of the public to seek something which should not be granted. Planning should not be liberalised too much. Good planning is essential. The Planning Act is there to safeguard the public and I go along with anything that rationalises it and that does not allow abuse.
On 10 March the Minister, addressing a seminar held by the Irish Planning Institute, said that local authorities should show greater interest in overall development of areas under their control rather than concentrating on planning issues. I agree with that sentiment. The tendency up to now has been to develop places little by little, depending not necessarily on local needs but on local pressures, and this is not in the interest of good planning. A much broader view should be taken of development. I hope that the sentiment expressed by the Minister will get through to planning authorities around the country. I object to the building up of an area which should be left as a green space for playing grounds or parks. Invariably I find that local authorities have a tendency to build solidly out from the centre of town and to resist any attempt to allow for playing fields or parks for the young or the elderly. The local authority themselves are not subject to having to apply for planning permission and therefore they get away with this inept and unfair development. That should be stopped and the Department should set up some system whereby green spaces will have to be compulsorily retained. The Planning Act provides for a ratio of green space to be retained in proportion to the amount of land which is built up, but in my experience this ratio is not conformed with, and this is serious.
The next item I want to deal with is pollution. Up to now the Department of the Environment have dealt with matters coming under the three main headings of roads, housing, and water and sewerage. Pollution has become a major item in recent years and must now rank with those other three in importance. The Water Pollution Act is due to come into operation on 1 April next, and I believe it is not going to be implemented as it should. I have always objected to local authorities being the licensing bodies for the discharge of waste and sewage into waterways. This idea cannot be a success and we will end up with the local authorities being the people who are supposed to prosecute themselves. It is a most ridiculous situation. It has been proved in recent years time and time again that the greatest pollutors of our waterways are local authorities. A number of them—not enough— have been summoned. They have got away with it for far too long, and now they are being asked to be the people who will license bodies or groups who discharge into public waterways. This cannot succeed. I do not know what system of overseeing the Minister has in mind, but unless he is very vigilant this Bill will be useless. Local authorities have been given the authority to appoint anti-pollution officers, but what county manager is going to allow his anti-pollution officer to bring a case in court against himself? As chief executive of the local authority that is exactly what he would be doing. Who likes bad publicity? The natural tendency would be to avoid it.
Therefore I see grave defects in this Bill. Until such time as the Minister controls and oversees the administration I am afraid that this Bill will not be worth the paper it is written on. We have seen large-scale pollution in recent years of some of our most scenic waterways. It is said that Loughs Ennel and Owel in Mullingar are badly polluted through discharge of sewage by local authorities. It has been widely publicised that the Lakes of Killarney have been badly polluted. In last week's papers we read that all the portion of the River Suir which passes through County Tipperary is being closed to angling again in 1978 because fish life in it is very scarce owing to pollution which was caused primarily by various local authorities whose areas are situated along the banks of that river.
We have reached an alarming situation with regard to pollution. The efforts being made to remedy this situation are too weak and, in many cases, too late. In summer when the oxygen content of the water is low, when the water level has dropped, we notice large-scale fish kills caused by the discharge of sewage into the waterways. The fines that are imposed for breaches of the pollution laws are ridiculous. They are so small that they are no deterrent either to industrialists or to local authorities. The proposed fines are not adequate either.
This is an aspect of our legislation that will have to be tightened up if we are to be successful in the fight against pollution. The answer to many of the problems is the provision of sewage treatment works but there has been a great reticence in regard to the carrying out of such work. I appreciate that the provision of a sewage treatment plant near a major town involves heavy capital outlay but we must be prepared to spend the necessary moneys in order to deal with the problem. Such plants have been provided in every civilised country, particularly on the continent and in Britain in the past 50 years whereas we are only beginning to carry out this essential work. Unless we step up our efforts in regard to the provision of sewage treatment plants we will be faced with a worsening pollution problem for many years to come. I am aware that there are six or seven such schemes in operation but there is need, perhaps, for 600 or 700 schemes of that nature. There is not sufficient provision in the Estimate for this kind of work. Pollution ranks now with the big four—roads, housing, water and sewerage. We must realise that for years past we have been causing pollution that is way beyond the safely limit.
There are other factors in relation to pollution that are not readily apparent, for instance, the question of air pollution. Although the Department are monitoring the amount of pollution in the atmosphere, especially around the cities, we cannot be too vigilant in this regard. It seems likely that there will be smelters in the country in the future. In that eventuality we shall have to be extremely careful in the control of air pollution. Norway is a country far removed from the big industrial centres but I was surprised to read recently that the waterways there, especially in the south, are bereft of fish life because of the incidence of sulphuric acid. It seems extraordinary that the sources of this pollution are the industrial centres of Belgium, Germany and Holland and that the pollution reaches Norway in the form of sulphur dioxide which dissolves in the atmosphere and is transmitted to the lakes and rivers. We must be careful that a similar situation does not arise here.
Two other major problems in the sphere of pollution are litter and the ordinary town dump. The disposal of litter has been a problem for many years. The Department have organised many campaigns nationally with a view to overcoming this problem and the example has been followed locally by such bodies as chambers of commerce but all to no avail. We simply seem to be a dirty nation. It seems to be more natural to us to throw away litter than to put it in a bin or to burn it at home. The problem in so far as litter is concerned is great and is becoming worse because of the increase in the packaging of goods. I see no solution to this problem other than the setting of heavy fines for people who behave irresponsibly in regard to the disposal of litter. The voluntary method has been tried but without success. We need legislation that will provide for automatic fines for offenders.
The other problem is that of the town dump. There is hardly a town or village where there is not the ugly sight of a dump on its outskirts. One can usually smell these dumps before seeing them. Very often in dry weather they are set alight. The question of who is responsible for setting them on fire is a matter of debate. Sometimes the impression is given that the fires are started deliberately in order to burn as much of the material as possible but I am told that the fires can be caused also by the reflection of the sun on glass but that seems unlikely. There is nothing more obnoxious in the vicinity of a town than a dump that is not managed properly. It costs a lot of money to manage a dump properly. Perhaps to do so would necessitate having a bulldozer on the site and burying the refuse at the end of each day. However, such an operation would hardly be possible within the confines of the rates estimate.
Apart from ourselves being repelled by the state of some of these dumps, tourists are revolted by them. The only answer to this problem, and this is a system that is used in the more developed countries, is the provision of incinerators—a system which would involve local authorities in a very costly exercise but it is money that the Department would have to make available by way of capital funds. We must do this not only for our own sake but in order to make the country attractive to visitors.
I should like to see the Minister begin by introducing pilot schemes in one or two towns. Not only do we see dumps smouldering for months by the roadside but very often we find them on the banks of rivers so that there is a toxic emission from them into the waters.
One of the other major items is the question of water and sewerage. It is a slow process providing water for everyone in rural areas and it is slower still to provide sewerage facilities because it is a more costly item. I am glad to see that increased grants are being provided for water and sewerage. The Minister told us that there are still 75,000 houses in the country without water. That represents a very large number of people without such a very basic necessity. I am sure that twice that amount are without a proper sewerage system. I have not much sympathy with people grouped together who will not go to the bother of providing water for themselves. I find that those who do not do it depend on local authorities to provide them with everything at no cost. Any person living in a group of houses should be able to avail of a group water scheme.
I feel sorry for the people who are living in isolated houses. Unfortunately at the end of the last century and in the early part of this century when county councils were building cottages they made very little provision for water and sewerage facilities. We often find now that very poor people, especially the elderly and people with large families, live in those cottages and are not in a financial position to provide water for themselves even with the aid of grants. People living on pensions or social welfare benefits are unable to put up several hundred pounds. It is sad, as a member of a local authority, not to be able to offer any hope to those people. I believe some effort will have to be made to provide money to carry out the work on behalf of those people. There must be thousands of such cases throughout the country.
We are all glad to see that the election promise to abolish rates on domestic dwellings has been implemented by the Government. The only complaint I have heard is from the officials of local authorities who say that the 11 per cent increase which was allowable in this year's Estimates is not sufficient to meet their needs. In my county, Waterford, the rates were cut to the bone and when the 11 per cent was granted they still had a shortfall of £200,000. There will have to be a major cutback in some services. We had a catastrophe in the county when we had a very severe snowfall and the cost of clearing the roads came to £80,000. There was very little provision made for such work. The result is that many necessary road schemes will have to be abandoned this year. Can the Department compensate a county council who run into difficulties like that? In America, when there is a hurricane or serious flooding, a state of emergency can be declared and the Government provide additional funds to alleviate the hardship caused. Waterford County Council have been set back £80,000 because of a freak snowstorm which blocked roads for days. The county council had to clear those roads at enormous expense.
I should not leave the housing of itinerants to the end because we all have great regard for people like Victor Bewley and others who have done great work in rehousing people who are referred to commonly as itinerants or travelling people. As a result of their efforts, together with those of the Department of the Environment, a lot of those people have been rehoused. Most Reverend Dr. Birch of Kilkenny should also be mentioned in that context. He was one of the first public figures actively to involve himself in this cause.
It is startling to read in the Minister's speech that there are still 862 itinerant families without houses. It appears from a survey carried out that two-thirds of them are anxious to settle in houses. I know that a certain number of itinerants prefer to stay on the road. I hope the Minister can impress on local authorities who are trying to shelve this problem that they should fulfil their duty. There seems to be an enormous number of itinerant people who are anxious to settle in houses when one considers that itinerants usually have large families. The itinerant problem is like the pollution problem which is with us and which we have evaded for far too long.
The Minister mentioned that the staff of local authorities are being trained in the use of computers. He said that nine county councils are involved in this training programme at the moment. I feel that the staff of local authorities are not given a fair chance to train in modern methods, such as computers and other office methods. I believe they get a very poor look in in comparison with people in similar positions in business organisations. The Minister of State in the House at the moment is very conversant with the situation. I hope he will impress on the Minister to have a look at this matter. The staff should be given a better chance to attend seminars and courses and become up to date with modern business methods. People in business organisations are allowed off duty frequently to attend seminars and courses to keep up to date with modern business methods. The business methods employed by local authorities are a bit antiquated. It is hard enough for local authorities, with restricted finance, to get modern office machinery but when they buy them the staff are not given the opportunity to learn how to use them.
The White Paper brought in by Deputy Molloy, as Minister for Local Government in the last Fianna Fáil Government, dealt with the reorganisation of local government. The big factor in that White Paper was the abolition of certain local authorities. That idea seems to have been abandoned and I agree with that. The retention of local authorities is an essential part of local democracy. The public are entitled to elect people to voice their grievances. Some town commissioners have voluntarily gone out of existence and others do not seem to serve a great purpose. However, rather than abolishing local authorities, certain towns served at the moment by town commissioners should have their status upgraded to that of urban council. There are a number of towns in which 4,000, 5,000, 6,000, 7,000 and 8,000 people live which have only got town commissioners. That is not good enough. The powers of town commissioners are extremely limited. They have no power to deal with letting houses, which is a major matter in a community, and they cannot get repairs to houses and so on carried out. Towns of this size should be given a status so that they can have political muscle or local representation with a bit of muscle. Instead of downgrading these local authorities they should be upgraded.
The importance of the rationalisation of membership of local authorities was brought out recently during Question Time. It is ridiculous that a member of Dublin Corporation should represent something like 11,000 people when a person in a rural community may only represent hundreds. There is a great discrepancy there. I know there should always be a bias in favour of the rural member because his constituents are in much more spread-out areas, but the bias that exists at the moment is too ridiculous for words. In fairness, the ratio of members to the number of voters should be rationalised.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Bill and I hope that some of the matters I referred to will be attended to. In my part of the country we need a better road system. The present situation, as I have already said, is not good enough. We also need to have a new bridge erected before the old one falls down and Waterford becomes isolated. Waterford has almost become the forgotten city of the country.
