This Supplementary Estimate affords us an opportunity of discussing the question of the future administration and policy of the Department of the Environment. Indeed, the position in regard to that Department has changed substantially since Question Time today.
Supplementary Estimates, 1979. - Vote 29: Environment (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1979, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for the Environment, including grants to Local Authorities, grants and other expenses in connection with housing, and miscellaneous schemes and grants including a grant-in-aid.
—(Minister for the Environment.)
Could we have a little order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle?
Would Deputy Collins wait a moment? Would Deputies please leave the House quietly? Business must go ahead. Deputy Collins is in possession.
The position regarding the Department of the Environment has changed substantially since 2.30 p.m., seeing that we now have two Ministers of State being added as a back-up facility to the Minister himself. I am pleased to learn that my constituency colleague, Deputy Jackie Fahey, has been appointed to the Department as well as Deputy Connolly from the Laois-Offaly constituency. It is a fair indication——
Deputy Collins, please, we are on Supplementary Estimates. We are not discussing the appointment of Ministers of State.
I am merely availing of the opportunity——
There will have to be an additional Supplementary Estimate to pay their salaries.
An Leas-Cheann Comharle
It is not included here. We are dealing now with Supplementary Estimates.
Surely the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will agree that, on the appointment of any Ministers of State, the occasion should be availed of by an Opposition spokesman to welcome their appointment and wish them well. That is an ordinary courtesy afforded us in the House.
We are now debating Supplementary Estimates.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle is taking a rather extraordinary position. Perhaps he does not agree himself with the appointments or something——
The Chair should not be abused in that way. Will Deputy Collins continue to comment on the Supplementary Estimate with which we are now dealing?
I find it rather amazing that I should not be allowed congratulate people on their appointment to office.
The position in the Department of the Environment is not exactly satisfactory to many public representatives. Since Fianna Fáil resumed office two-and-a-half years ago the lists of housing applications have increased substantially, as has also the list of priority applications. Indeed, only the night before last Dublin Corporation had to declare a housing emergency, taking a decision to rehouse the 6,000 applicants, if possible, within the next two or three years. That is a daunting task because it is obvious to me that there is not on the part of this Government the necessary commitment to ensuring the availability of funds for the building of council houses. The whole tenor of this Government's policy in relation to housebuilding has been to help the speculator, speculative builders and those builders who supported the party opposite in the last election. The speculative builders have gained substantially from the £1,000 new house grant. Almost within a day of the announcement of that grant, house prices increased across the board by about £1,000. That was a direct indication that this grant——
There is nothing in the Supplementary Estimate in respect of the £1,000 new house grant. We must keep strictly to what is in the Supplementary Estimate before us. That is and has always been the rule of the House.
I am merely stating that in my opinion that £1,000 grant was not of benefit to house purchasers but was of direct benefit to speculative builders.
The Deputy may not continue in this vein. There is nothing in the Supplementary Estimate in respect of the grant to which he is referring.
Regarding the money being made available to housing authorities, there has been evidence recently of a substantial decrease in the number of house starts in local authority areas. It is fair to say that in 1979 the number of starts in respect of new houses in local authority areas has decreased by some 2,000.
There is nothing in the Supplementary Estimate under that heading. What the Deputy is talking about is in the main Estimate.
On a point of order, this matter is relevant to the Supplementary Estimate by reason of subhead E.I where we find that there is a saving in the form of money not spent in the context and that relates to house purchase.
I told the Deputy already today that savings may not be discussed.
More than £1 million has been left unspent in this regard.
Deputy Bruton should not endeavour to lecture the Chair. There is nothing in the Supplementary Estimate about house grants.
This matter is included in Subhead E.1.
I think Deputy Bruton is correct. If moneys which are not spent relate directly to house building——
We have given the ruling on that. I have explained to the House that on numerous occasions the Chair has ruled that there cannot be any debate on savings. I said that I did not see why I should agree to that, but it is the rule of the House.
Though there is a housing crisis it was not found possible to spend even the money that was provided.
It is regrettable that I am not being allowed to discuss the severe housing shortage and the housing crisis.
The Deputy may discuss only what is in the Supplementary Estimate. The ruling in this regard, which has been given to the House on about 50 occasions, specifies that where part of a sum relates to savings on certain subheads of original votes, such subheads are not open to debate. That ruling has been given by people in this Chair during a long number of years. I do not like it but it is the rule that must apply.
Why not change it, then?
If I were to do that I am sure it would not be very long before Deputy Bruton would come in and demand that I follow precedent but of course I am not supposed to do that when it suits the Deputy that I should not do it.
In that case, I must confine my remarks to subhead M which relates to licensed road vehicles and drivers. The decision by the Minister to allow current holders of second or subsequent provisional driving licences to avail of full licences has been met in informed circles with unanimous condemnation. It has been accepted generally that there is a need for a uniformly high standard of driving. The Minister's decision which arose from incompetence and from an unwillingness to provide the necessary manpower in this area is reprehensible. If there was a problem in regard to delays, surely the Minister could have employed additional people to cater for the backlog of applications for driving tests rather than set about clearing up that backlog by means which are not likely to lead to a high standard of driving. Having regard to the accident rate and to the number of deaths on the roads, the need for high driving standards is obvious. But the Minister's decision has put in jeopardy any prospect of increasing the standard in this respect. Other EEC countries have looked at us askance. They may even get the impression that we are a banana-type republic, that when we have a backlog of applications in any area, we deal with the situation by scrapping the applications and qualifying those concerned.
For the information of the Deputy, there was no driving test in Belgium until less than two years ago.
That is fairly obvious to anyone who drives in that country.
That is not in any way a good reflection on Belgium. Anyone who lives abroad, especially in either France or Germany, will know what I mean when I say that there is not a very high standard of driving here. One aspect in relation to driving licences with which I agree is the granting of full licences to holders of full licences in other EEC countries. This is reasonable and acceptable but if there has not been a driving test in, say, Belgium or if Belgians have not passed a competency test in their own country, they should not be given a full driving licence here.
Subhead L relates to grants in respect of road works. I wish again to raise the question of the infrastructural development of main roads. The White Paper which was published by the Minister during the year and which concerns the development of roads, was couched in terms of money being available and in the context of the budgetary provision. Major spending, therefore, was being pushed back to the end of the eighties. While the White Paper was worth while in that it indicated that priority could be laid down in relation to the development of a road network, there would not appear to be a very high priority in this area except in respect of major roads linking the major cities. There would not appear to be a high priority for other roads linking towns and cities. In relation to my constituency there is an obvious need for the proposed high-level bridge in Waterford and for a whole network of roads around the city but clearly the Minister is dragging his feet in relation to the high-level bridge.
The only other matter to which I wish to refer relates to the compilation of the register of electors. Surely a more efficient way could be devised in order to ensure that we have an up-to-date and comprehensive register. The burden on rate collectors and on officials within local authorities in relation to the compilation of the register is too great. What is involved is a complex and difficult task, especially in areas of new populations or of urban areas into which new populations are moving. My experience during the elections held this year was that a large number of people in new housing areas who were entitled to vote were not on the register. That was an indication that the register is not comprehensive or up to date. I wish to make it clear that I am not in any way blaming the individuals involved in the compilation of the register. I am suggesting that sufficient resources are not being invested in the proper compilation of a comprehensive register of electors. The people involved are working on a shoestring budget. I had hoped to discuss interest rates of building societies——
The Chair has no discretion in these matters — only what is in the Supplementary Estimate may be discussed.
I intended to discuss the refusal by the Minister to introduce proper subsidies in regard to interest rates on house mortgages. This is vital because of the rapid increase in house prices.
The Chair wishes to point out to the Deputy that he did not stop him from discussing subsidies on interest rates, because there is a subhead on that.
I am aware of that, but I am not in a position to discuss housing policy generally. In relation to subsidies, I merely wish to say there is need for substantial subsidisation of interest rates on house mortgages because of highly inflated house prices. I am not talking about a new three or four bedroom house costing £10,000 or £15,000. I am talking about such houses now costing between £30,000 and £40,000. Even if both young people are working it is impossible for them to approach a building society and hope to complete repayments without being on the breadline for a period of 20 years.
If the Government are genuinely committed to the prosperity of the building industry and to priority for private house building they will not succeed unless there is a scheme of proper subsidisation of house mortgage interest rates. Young couples have many more problems than mortgage repayments. They have to face the prospect of increases in family numbers and the possibility of unemployment. I have come across families, young happily married couples, who are not in a position to continue mortgage repayments. They are the new poor of the country and there is a great social obligation on the Government to introduce a proper subsidy scheme. For instance, the Minister could arrange that repayments in the first ten years would be at a very low level, excluding altogether repayment of capital in the early years. In that situation the payments would be heavier in the next 15 years. It would help young families to face the initial terrible challenge of setting up their own homes. In present circumstances the £3,500 limit on interest payments for income tax purposes has become irrelevant.
Twice in the past 24 hours from these benches the Labour Party point of view on the Minister for the Environment has been made clear by me and Deputy Quinn. At the risk of creating a precedent for making the shortest speech on record, I do not propose to repeat any of the statements we made earlier for the reason that they are as true today as they were yesterday.
I should like to deal particularly with roads and to invite the Minister to indicate the policy he has on roads. During his two and a half years in office there does not appear to have been a policy of any kind. I am talking about the main roads from here to Cork, from here to the west and from here to the north. We are getting many more articulated heavy trucks on these roads at all times of the day. They are becoming a real hazard from the point of view of safe driving and I submit that is why we are having so many serious accidents. There has been a general deterioration in the standard of upkeep of these roads. I am not satisfied enough is being done. If we want to open up areas other than Dublin we must have proper lines of communication to them, a proper road network. Since this Minister took over the Department, the quality of our roads has declined. I am advocating a ten-year policy on main roads.
I should like to deal briefly with traffic control. From the point of view of traffic, Dublin is chaotically congested. There does not seem to be any form of control. Cars are just allowed on to the streets. There are various lobbies for and against new ring-roads but this is a matter which will be debated for some time to come. However, the lead must come from the Department, but they are waiting for the various reactions and that is their excuse for not doing anything.
The position in Cork city is the same: conditions are equally chaotic. They have been demanding that remedial measures be taken by the provision of down-river bridges and alternative routes but the money is not forthcoming. I would expect a Supplementary Estimate to be for the purpose of doing something constructive but this one does not propose to do anything constructive. Many towns are being paralysed because heavy traffic is permitted to run through them. The provision of ring roads should be a top priority. Naas, on the road to Cork, is a major bottleneck, while the road from Dublin to Enfield is so poor that traffic is reduced to a snail's pace. Ring roads around Dublin would take a lot of the traffic from the centre of the city and relieve congestion there.
We have all seen the chaos on our roads which occurs because of the absence of proper traffic control. The Minister should outline his views in relation to that problem.
A sum of money is provided in the Estimate for the provision of offices for An Bord Pleanála and the carrying out of renovations to existing accommodation. I should like to know if the Minister is satisfied with the length of time it takes to deal with appeals. Some of the appeals take a long time. The delays may be for genuine reasons but the Minister should tell us if that is so. There is room for improvement because there appears to be a breakdown in that service to the public. This is not confined to An Bord Pleanála because, as we learned today, offices of another section of Government are to be closed for a period because of a backlog. That is not the sign of a healthy administration. The Minister should see to it that planning appeals are dealt with expeditiously, particularly in relation to domestic and private houses.
It was natural to expect that those who benefited under the Minister's order in relation to driving licences were elated, but it should be remembered that the decision to introduce driving tests was to improve the competence of drivers. We all know that the number of accidents in recent weeks have reached frightening proportions and it is understandable that people are asking if there is any relation between the decision to grant full licences to those who held two provisional licences and the increase in the number of road accidents. We are all aware that a person who is injured or killed in an accident may not have been responsible for it. A careless driver, who may not be aware of his or her guilt, may be responsible. The Department should re-examine this matter.
If we are of the view that driving tests are essential to prevent death and serious injury on our roads, we must retain them. We cannot excuse any number of people from such tests. The Minister has built up the expectations of many people who are hoping that next year there will be such a serious backlog that they will be given a full licence without having to do a test. That is not good management. We must look very silly in the eyes of our European partners. We have a testing system similar to other European countries but, because of a shortage of staff—I believe that was the reason—we decided to ignore it. Is it the situation that we cannot get qualified staff? I would have thought that if a proper pay scale was offered there would be many people anxious to take up the post. It was scandalous to suspend the test, and that fact is related in the number of accidents that have occurred in recent weeks. The Minister should announce that he will never suspend such tests again. If he does not do that, people will postpone their test in the hope that the backlog will become so great that the Minister will suspend the tests again.
The amount allocated for subsidies on mortgages, a scheme introduced in Dublin when money was not available from local authorities, not through their fault but because of the action of the Government of the day, has been increased from £74,000 to £98,000. That is an indication in the increase in mortgage rates. This will continue to be a serious problem because there is no guarantee that mortgage rates will not increase. Bank interest rates are high and the credit squeeze may last longer that we expect. For that reason building societies may not attract much investment, resulting in an increase in the mortgage rates. The Minister should ensure that, if an increase takes place, mortgage holders do not suffer. House prices must be examined because young couples are experiencing great difficulty in procuring a home. The cheapest house one can buy at present is in the region of £20,000 and, with the interest rate at 14½ per cent, repayments are terribly high. It is beyond the capacity of most young people to meet such huge repayments. Because of the extent of the repayments young couples live in fear of having a child. That is unnatural because one of the joys of marriage is to have a child.
The Minister should have a look at the whole question of finance for houses. I suggest that the Government subsidise the interest rate in the first year so that repayments are on the capital sum only and that each year thereafter the mortgagee pays 1 per cent until the going rate is reached. I accept that that would be a costly exercise, but the Government have a role to play in ensuring that society functions in a normal Christian way. We should not be building up fears and deterrents. If we do, we will encounter broken marriages; and we all know what that costs society in the long term. It is important that the Minister examine the question of mortgage subsidies. It is not new. The idea of subsidising mortgages took root in other countries. People with reasonably sound incomes are putting themselves on to the local authority waiting lists. These people would rather provide their own homes but people earning from £4,500 to £5,000 can get, at a maximum, only a £9,000 loan from the local authority. A building society just does not want to know a person earning that sort of money if the wife is not working. There should be some realism in relation to the loans system and if the amount of the loan does not match up, the question of a subsidy should come into it. The low rise mortgage scheme is a good form of subsidy and it should be considered for all couples so that they will have an opportunity to buy their own homes without the fear that if they buy a house they cannot afford to have a family. I will contact the Minister again if I see nothing happening in this area.
In the Supplementary Estimate additional money is provided for the compilation of the voting register. I got a draft of the register for my electoral area and it is unreadable. It would be of no use to anyone and certainly it would not be much good to the people working in polling stations checking off the people who come to vote.
The printing is really a matter for the Stationery Office and not the local authority.
The Department of the Environment are responsible for this register, the printing of which is only a technicality. Whether Cahills or the Stationery Office print it is only a point of argument but the Department of the Environment are responsible for this register. Is this what the Department of the Environment are spending money on? The register was a shambles in some areas in the European elections this year. At that time the Minister was asked by a number of Deputies what could be done to avoid the sort of thing where some people were not on the register even though they had been living at the same address for 20 years. The Department must get on to the local authorities to ensure that this job is done well. This slipshod method will have to be scrapped. The Department should be satisfied that this job was done properly and they should find out what the problems are and rectify them. The electoral register is a very important document and it lists the people who have a right to vote for or against a Government or a local authority. This slipshod method creates a lot of suspicion and I would ask the Minister to examine the matter.
Those are the main points I wish to make. We are debarred from talking about money that was over on the housing side. The Minister should tell us where we can get the relevant information. I was in the unhappy position of telling my local authority that I had been told by the Minister that we were underspending our capital allocation. The local authority said they spent all their allocation. I am not saying anyone is telling an untruth. There is obviously a misunderstanding. I did not wish to make a political point but would like to know the position regarding underspending and find out where it is. We have a housing problem and any money we get from the Government should be spent. If my local authority are not spending it I will chase after them to ensure that they do so.
The saving on housing is a saving on the subsidy and has nothing to do with the allocation for building houses. I should like to thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate. As regards the register of electors I hope the corporation will do an efficient job. There is no restriction whatever on funds for the compilation of the register. Extra money is being made available for this for the reasons given. At this time of year we advertise extensively to ensure that people are on the register and avoid the kind of mistakes which Deputy O'Brien referred to and which came to light at the time of the local elections. However, people are slow to fill the forms. They leave them aside and forget about them. The rate collectors in the area are paid to check the register, put on new people and take off people who have left the area or who have died. They also have the opportunity at the revision court as well as that of checking the draft register. There is no restriction on the funds with regard to this. We must depend on the local authorities to do the work. We will inquire about the case of bad printing. That should not happen.
Mention was made of the issue of a full driving licence to people with more than one current provisional licence. I gave a full answer on this on 17 October and explained why it had to be done. Deputy Collins asked why I did not recruit more people. I have recruited 25 per cent more people into this section over the last year and a half. There was a backlog of 60,000 applications which was due to the postal strike. People were waiting up to 11 months for tests. Many of them were waiting to take up jobs for which they required a full licence. To recruit more people would take several months because it is a long drawn out process. I made the regulation primarily to deal with the backlog. It is dwindling rapidly. We will revert to the previous procedure when the backlog is cleared. The waiting time for tests will be about four to six weeks at most.
The state of the roads was mentioned by Deputies O'Brien and Collins. I shall send them both a copy of the national roads plan, published during the year, which set out in great detail what we aim to do over the next ten years. It is the first time in the history of the State that any such plan has been published. It will serve as a guide to the local authorities, who are the road authorities. It is an achievable plan and covers the period up to 1989. It not only includes roads but bridges. Cork was mentioned by Deputy O'Brien. With regard to having bridges in the Tivoli area, last February we made £50,000 available to Cork Corporation and County Council to come up with a feasibility study. We are still waiting for that. We are not letting things go as they are. The plan is a major step forward and on its implementation we shall see great advantages in regard to economic growth and with regard to convenience for road users.
Deputy O'Brien mentioned An Bord Pleanála. They suffered, like many other boards, because of the postal strike. The board and staff have moved to new premises and better working conditions. Delays will not be as great as they were in recent months. People like to have oral hearings and they must take a place in the queue. Matters could be dealt with quickly if people did not want an oral hearing but it is their right to look for it and many of them get no hearing.
Deputy Collins mentioned the rising cost of housing in the context of a subsidy payable to building societies. Deputy O'Brien asked if we could do something about interest charges. Under the SDA and low rise mortgage schemes, if one takes the year ended 30 September 1979, the total loan subsidies amounted to £44 million which financed the purchase of 6,200 houses. People who would qualify for these loans are in the lower income groups. Building society loan charges were subsidised in 1974 by 1 per cent for the purpose of attracting more deposits in order to provide money for house construction and house purchase. While bank charges have risen in recent months, building societies have not increased their lending rates. This should be appreciated. While they stand at 14.15 per cent they are much lower than other interest rates. I am glad to say that the deposits kept growing appreciably during the year even though they did not increase their deposit rates. There is no question at the moment of introducing a subsidy for building societies.
I hope I have dealt with all the points raised and I thank the Deputies for their contributions.
Vote put and agreed to.