Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 22 Mar 1984

Vol. 349 No. 2

Estimates, 1984. - Vote 28: Environment (Revised Estimate) (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a sum not exceeding £656,924,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1984, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for the Environment, including grants in lieu of rates on agricultural land and other grants to Local Authorities, grants and other expenses in connection with housing, and miscellaneous schemes, subsidies and grants including certain grants-in-aid.

—(Minister for the Environment.)

Mr. Yates

In speaking on this Estimate a fortnight ago I went through a series of proposals I had to resolve the financial crisis in local authorities and I also detailed areas where I considered our housing policy should be reviewed. Today I shall deal with a number of specific items in the Department of the Environment that are causing acute problems.

The first relates to urban boundary extensions. There are four of these proposed in County Wexford, in Gorey, Wexford, Enniscorthy and New Ross. However, they are being held up because of the financial situation. I have been informed by officials of Wexford County Council that not one urban boundary extension has taken place since domestic rates on homes were abolished in 1978.

The present financial structures of local authorities do not allow for what is a vitally important development. It is vital for many provincial towns that they be allowed to expand for the purpose of industrial development so that a potential investor can ascertain the way an area is growing in terms of labour needs. There are basic anomalies that have to be rectified. People who live on different sides of a street have different eligibility for free fuel, in certain cases for unemployment assistance and for other entitlements. It is totally unfair that because a person lives on one side of the street and is in an urban area he should be entitled to free fuel but another person in the same circumstances on the other side of the street is not so entitled because he is in the rural area. The same situation applies with regard to water rates. In my area different water rates have been charged by the county council as against the urban council. This is a cause of great aggravation to the people concerned.

A fund should be set up to facilitate county councils and municipal authorities to expand. The percentage rate for capital schemes is at a reduced rate for urban authorities: I am thinking of main drainage schemes and so on. One of the reasons urban boundaries cannot be extended is that the authority will get a reduced State subsidy on their loans for such schemes because they are a municipal authority. If the same percentage rate applied to both types of authority it would solve the problem. I hope this matter will be given serious attention.

In relation to planning permissions and the charges introduced last year, I require clarification on whether GAA club developments are exempt from the charges. I understand that the phrasing of the ministerial order relates to community-type developments but it is quite unspecific as to whether GAA clubs will be exempt from planning charges. Some clubs in Wexford are liable for such charges. In this the centenary year of the GAA, it would be appropriate that the exemption be extended to GAA club developments because they are allegedly a non-profit making organisation. It seems to be totally unfair that a company can be charged £1,200, as happened recently in an incident I know of, for a development, whether it is for potential planning permission or an expansion and then they were turned down and lost their money. There should be some rebate system especially for small businesses so that if people do not get planning permission some percentage of their charges will be refunded because they have paid for a service they are not ultimately getting.

Some disgraceful and ridiculous delays have taken place with An Bord Pleanála. Delays of two and three years have taken place. There is one farmer I know of who had bought cows and did some development work. He got planning permission to erect silos and milking parlours. There was an objection and this took so long — it still has not been dealt with to date by An Bord Pleanála — that he had to sell his cows and suffered a substantial loss. It is a disgrace that An Bord Pleanála take so long to deal with such matters. When this is applied to the commercial criteria it is simply inexplicable. I know of people who had a proposal in to build factory units. There were objectors and this took three years to sort out. In the end there had to be a direct deal between the objectors and the developer. An Bord Pleanála are a vehicle to stop industrial and agricultural development in many areas. I plead with the Minister to introduce a six-month limit on all appeals before An Bord Pleanála. Six months is a reasonable time for anyone to process any thorny problems. If there was such a deadline people would not be held up unduly long and would not be put to great losses. At the same time we would get the best type of planning environment.

I would like to move on to County Wexford specifically in relation to the amount of money being spent by the Department of the Environment. The housing allocations have recently been announced by the Department. The allocation for Enniscorthy Urban District Council is £400,000. I hope the Minister will meet a deputation from the urban council in relation to Phase 3 of the Drumgoole scheme. We have no programme for housing at the moment and if is vitally important that we get the allocation for the go ahead for that scheme.

There are a number of sewerage schemes around County Wexford, in Castlebridge and Kilmuckridge, in desperate need of being handled expeditiously because some of those schemes are going on for up to eight years. There is a training centre for the fire service in Castlebridge and I understand there have been repeated requests from the personnel there to have it modernised and brought up to the best possible standard. I hope that request will be acceded to. There is no doubt that, because the PLV case was brought up in Wexford and because of the difficulties of Wexford County Council in relation to the outstanding arrears of £1.8 million and the interest on that, the most insolvent county council in the country is County Wexford, bearing the brunt of being in the middle of a court action between the Government and the farmers. If we are serious about protecting the long-term future of Wexford County Council it is vitally important that the Government take early steps to sort out that financial situation.

I have dealt with different ways in which financial structures could be changed to help local authorities. I hope something is specifically done in relation to this matter because Wexford has borne the brunt of this and will have to take impossible decisions because they are statutorily obliged to provide services for which they have no money. It is a catastrophic situation and will have to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

With relation to the house improvement grant system there should be far greater flexibility in relation to the prior inspection. When the scheme was reintroduced in November 1981 I understand it was done on the basis that they wanted to start afresh so that people who had done work in the interim period between the last scheme and those who were refused under the old renovation scheme would not be able to reapply. That period has long elapsed. I notice the recent modification in the Department that certain starts will not be ruled out on the basis of the prior inspection. More leniency is required here. If something is half built it is necessary to allow the development to go ahead because it is a genuine one.

I should also point out, in relation to the house improvement grants, something which I consider is totally unfair, although it may seem a small thing. I know of a person on unemployment assistance at the very lowest level of income. He had no toilet or sanitary services whatsoever. He put in an application to the Department for the erection of an outside toilet. He was refused on the grounds that an outside toilet was not the type of development that was required and he would have to build an extension to his existing house to put in a toilet. That type of develompment would cost in the region of £1,000 whereas the other would only cost the man approximately £300. The bottom line is that he will not have a toilet. I feel very sore that the Department are so inflexible in such instances. When there is genuine hardship and people are cutting the cloth according to their measure I feel they should be facilitated in every way.

I am sorry that the principal officers in the new house grant scheme will not come under the scrutiny of the public expenditure committee because some of the decisions taken are totally unfair. I know of a couple who had submitted plans which were over a year in the Department. They were ultimately ruled out because those plans were wrong and the couple went ahead and built according to those plans. They were ruled out because of something which was not in the memorandum attached to new house grants, that the dormer windows had to be facing a certain way. I feel those people were very badly treated. I know of another case in relation to the year of occupancy. A person applied and was waiting a year to get an SL4 form from the Revenue Commissioners and because of that delay the application for a new house grant went in one month after the year of occupancy and that application was refused. This is totally unfair and there should be greater flexibility in this area.

In relation to the essential repairs grant scheme, the house improvement scheme and the disabled person's grant scheme it is socially unacceptable that people have no sanitary services. There is a need to combine employment creation and social needs in this area very urgently. I suggest that the Department of the Environment have another look at this whole area on the basis of saying: "Right, in 1984 it is socially unacceptable that people do not have toilets and sanitary services." There is a multiplicity of State services for youth employment. There is the Youth Employment Agency, AnCO and the NMS. Those should be confined and the Government should say that they will abolish all the grant schemes and they will introduce a youth employment scheme whereby if any person wants sanitary services a youth scheme will do that work. We would simultaneously create jobs for young people at a fairly low cost and provide what is an essential service for many people who are without sanitary services at the moment. We are all aware of many elderly people in our constituencies who must drag pails of water a quarter or half a mile. Surely that is unacceptable and that a revamped youth-employment scheme to meet this social need would be the right way to move.

There are a number of other small matters to which I wish to bring the Minister's attention. One is public lighting. On a national primary route it seems most unfair that the maintenance and cost of public lighting, ESB charges and so on should all be met by the local authority. Surely that cost could be taken up by the Department of the Environment.

There should be some provision within the Department of the Environment for a practical and flexible way of helping the many homeless people, whether they be young couples starting off, homeless men or deserted wives. I am thinking here of the provision of mobile homes even in a temporary capacity until they are rehoused. Many local authorities have a one year rule under which nobody can be housed unless they have been an applicant under the letting priority scheme for at least one year. I know many such people — homeless men, homeless wives with four children who literally have nowhere to go and whose entitlement is zero until they have been one year on the housing list. Probably the best way to proceed to meet this need would be through the Department making moneys available to or reimbursing local authorities for a stock of mobile homes. That would be dealing with what is an emergency situation in a very practical way.

In relation to road safety, the general level of anti-theft devices and so on, the Departments of the Environment and Justice should get together to ensure that there are compulsory provisions applicable to new cars. In my constituency a new company has been set up to print on each pane of glass in a car the registration number of that car so that if one's registration number is, say, UZR 240, that would be printed on every pane of glass in that car. It has been proven that of the 50 to 60 cars stolen each day in Dublin 11 to 12 per cent of them are stolen by professionals with a view to their resale, which is then done by changing the registration plates. If the Department of the Environment stipulated that nobody could tax their car without its having some form of anti-theft device such provision would cut enormously the malicious damages claims and in the long-term be of major beneficial effect. There are other forms of anti-theft devices. For example, there is another which when turned on will ensure that a car will move only about ten yards when the petrol supply will be cut off. The stealing of cars constitutes the tip of the iceberg only in the type of crime perpetrated after their theft. For example, tragically, people are killed from joy-riding. We see also the number of stolen cars used in robberies, kidnappings and so on. Therefore there is a double-edged factor here. I would recommend that in such instances the Department of the Environment and Justice consult with certain companies insisting that all new cars to be taxed have fitted certain anti-theft devices. This would do more for road safety than any other measure and I hope the Department will take up this suggestion.

I might recapitulate somewhat on what I said already about the financial condition of local authorities at present. Because of the PLV case, the abolition of rates and because of the cut in the domestic grant in lieu of those rates formerly levied, we have now reached a cash crisis situation in local authorities that must be resolved and faced head on. My suggested remedy would be, say, a 1 per cent VAT refund on purchases in municipal authority areas, or in county council areas. It should be remembered that we collected £1.6 billion in VAT last year and if a percentage of that were to be paid to local authorities it would constitute one way of solving the problem.

Secondly, I would suggest a lottery run independently and autonomously by local authorities which would be another method of overcoming the problem. There might also be an element of privatisation in the capital schemes of local authorities. There is also the whole question of a roads finance agency which would aid the cash flow of the Department of the Environment, which hopefully would provide ultimately through joint venture schemes infrastructural and social works at a cheaper rate, whether they be housing, roads, the building of bridges or whatever.

There is the whole question of self-financing services to be taken up by local authorities. Funds generated through the courts by fines or whatever should be payable to local authorities. Surely it is only reasonable that those responsible for the maintenance of, say, the court-house should receive a few coppers out of it. There are the other services such as the licensing of transport vehicles and so on. All of those funds might be paid to the local authority. Each of these contributes little to the Department at present, but to a local authority it would make all the difference, having a more practical, localised effect on such services.

I wish the Minister and his Minister of State well. In their lifetime I hope the Government will face up to the financial crisis of local authorities because, if not, ultimately they will be reduced to mere talking shops. If we do not devise the appropriate financial structures, then they should simply be abolished, which would be a most regrettable step. I would urge the Minister to use his good offices and those of his officials for an early conclusion of the revision and reorganisation of local authorities. In the course of such review they should give priority to financial structures because, if one does not have the money, all other policies go out the window.

I hope my remarks and suggestions will contribute somewhat to that process.

Mr. Molloy

I congratulate Deputy Yates on his contribution in which he showed a keen interest and a clear insight into the difficulties now facing local authorities. When one compares his contribution with the rather sterile remarks of the Minister in his introduction one wonders what is happening on the Government side, why action is not being taken when their backbenchers clearly are capable of articulating the difficulties and of suggesting to them solutions similar to those advanced from these benches. One wonders why the Government are refusing to take any action to deal with what most people in this House recognise as a serious crisis.

When we look back approximately 16 months, when the Government came into office, with the appointment of the Leader of the Labour Party as Minister for the Environment and Deputy Quinn, also of the Labour Party, as Minister of State one remembers there were great expectations that the Environment brief would be a powerhouse for development, meeting the urgent housing needs of our people, providing the infrastructural needs of a fast-growing population and facilitating the industrial growth necessary to provide urgently needed jobs. There was a belief then that bold and imaginative initiatives would be taken to make the Environment the concern of everybody, to render local government more meaningful and dynamic in promoting local development and strengthening local democracy. We must ask what is the position now 16 months later. The answer is that those two bright lights to whom we all looked for these bold initiatives, these major dramatic and radical changes, have deserted the Environmental brief. The Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, sought refuge in the less onerous duties of the Department of Energy and Deputy Quinn has moved to the Department of Labour. One can fairly comment that this move could have been made to save him embarrassment for not fulfilling the promises he made of major improvements in nearly every area under his responsibility. The record of these two Ministers is dismal. The only achievements they can claim are the changes in An Bord Pleanála which were politically inspired.

The Local Government (Financial Provisions) (No. 2) Bill which they left behind as a legacy enables local authorities to introduce charges for services. More importantly, it removes the obligation on the Exchequer to provide a sum to local authorities in lieu of domestic and agricultural rates. It enabled the Minister to decide on an arbitrary figure which would not have to relate to the amount of money local authorities would have received from rates. That change is now having the dramatic effect we forecast. It was a retrograde step and put the Department of the Environment and the Exchequer in the position of being complete masters over the financing of local authorities. We pointed out that the inevitable result would be that Government Departments would be looked after first when it came to the allocation of funds and that local authorities would come a poor second and be short of money. Everything we said during the course of the debate has come true. The Estimates show an average increase of 8 per cent to Departments but when it came to allocating money to the local authorilties they gave an increase of less than 1 per cent.

In a year when inflation is forecast at 9 to 10 per cent it is clear that this decision spells absolute and utter disaster for local authorities because they cannot be expected to maintain service with less than 1 per cent of an increase. Something has to give and it is to be seen in the threats of redundancies which county managers put before local authorities at their estimates meetings. This has resulted in council after council seeking meetings with the Minister to discuss the crisis which he created for local authorities. The Minister, being inundated with requests to receive deputations, had to resort to sending out a letter explaining that he had so many requests from so many local authorities that it would be April or May before he could see them all but that if they wanted to come to Dublin they could see the Minister of State, Deputy O'Brien. The Minister is running away from local authorities and will not face up to the problems he has created for them. It seems he is not prepared to sit down with them and discuss their difficulties or tell them why he has left them so short of money, how he expects them to survive and maintain the essential services which were so glowingly painted in his speech. He said he recognises the importance of these services yet he seeks to undermine them through a savage cut back in the allocation of funds to local authorities.

The Minister is not listening to the Deputies on his own backbenches. Deputy Yates articulated these difficulties in a clear and concise way and it is obvious that he has knowledge which the Minister is not prepared to recognise. It is incumbent on the Opposition to cut through the waffle in the Minister's speech which is padded from start to finish with selective figures used for propaganda purposes and presented to a willing media who are not prepared to look behind the figures and tell the real story of how it is in local authorities today.

There is no recognition in the Minister's speech of the turmoil this is creating. There is a threat to democracy in a move of this kind where the Government clearly seek to undermine the authority of the second tier of democracy by leaving it short of funds. I recognise that the decision to remove rates from houses brought about a fundamental change in the method of financing local authorities but in the Bill which introduced that change, very direct obligations were placed on the Minister to provide a sum of money equal to that which would have come to the local authorities from rates on houses. There was a shift from local taxation to national taxation in that the money was to be provided from the Exchequer. That decision of the House was reneged on by the Coalition. If the Government do not face up to the problem and come forward at an early date with new proposals to ensure an independent source of finance for local authorities then, as Deputy Yates said, they will have to be abolished. If that happened there would be a great void in the community which would have other adverse effects.

These are some of the legacies which the Tánaiste and the Minister, Deputy Quinn left behind them. They were two leading lights of the new Government which came in with such great hope for the introduction of change about 16 months ago. Unhappily for the Minister Deputy Kavanagh, he has been landed in their place and must carry the can for the mess they left behind. However, that is his problem. It seems he is prepared to defend all those decisions. He is responsible for them in that he participated in Cabinet decisions and voted for them in the House. He stands condemned as much as the other two gentlemen who skidaddled off out of the Department of the Environment.

One of the great hopes given to those who were in need of housing was that the Government intended to increase the house construction programme to 30,000. That was printed in their programme for Government and there were few who came to any conclusion other than that was what they intended to do. The programme stated that there was a housing crisis for couples trying to buy their own homes and for 35,000 people on council waiting lists. The Government will aim to raise housing output towards 30,000 houses a year with sufficient local authority housing to cater for those who cannot, even with the aid of schemes like the Housing Finance Agency, undertake the purchase of their own dwelling.

Therefore, it is clear that in the commitment made by the joint parties in Government they intended to raise housing output towards 30,000 houses a year. We had to wait until their full year in office to see whether they were serious in carrying out that intention and achieving that target, because we said they were not. When this Estimate was being debated last year and when the then and now continuing crisis in the construction industry was being debated here, we argued that we did not believe the Government were serious in implementing this, that they were not seeking to raise the housing output to 30,000. They made no financial provision to raise it to that limit. They introduced no new initiatives which would have increased housing output and completions to anything near that level. If the Minister had fallen short of this target by a few hundred nobody would quibble but no attempt whatsoever was made and the funds were not provided. The result is that we had the lowest number of house completions last year, the Government's first full year in office, that we have had for five years. A similar situation will arise in 1984 because the financial allocations provided in this Estimate we are debating here today are not adequate to raise housing output to 30,000. Because this Government have slept for all of the past 16 months no changes which would have brought any new incentive or initiative into the house building industry are seen. No, the Government are still relying on the existing aids which were there when they came into office, the ordinary house grant, the mortgage subsidy, local authority houses, and that is it.

Last year the Minister for the Environment tried to deride a Fianna Fáil spokesman in this House by saying that we were critical of the Government's inactivity but were not showing how these problems could be solved either, despite the fact that throughout every contribution that I have made in this area I have made firm and positive suggestions as to new changes and initiatives that could be taken which would bring about an increase in the number of houses being built. We have heard one of them mentioned here, that is the joint venture programme between local authorities and builders which, if vigorously pursued, would result in a very substantial increase in the number of houses being built, provided active interest was shown by the Minister in charge, that he became involved in the programme down to ground level and was seen to be committed to it, and that he spurred each of the local authorities with various incentives and improvements to ensure that joint venture projects were undertaken on a vast scale throughout the country.

We also suggested equity sharing as another element which could be introduced into the whole housing construction scene here which is absent at present. Again, no initiative in that area has been taken by the Government despite the success of equity sharing in other countries. It is clear that the methods that we are employing to try to provide homes for our people are not having the required and desired results. It is more than clear that the demand is there for houses. All the Government reports, the ESRI and others who have done studies and surveys of the housing crisis, have agreed that there is a massive demand for homes here. The Minister's own Programme for Government recognises that at that time there were 35,000 applicants for local authority houses which represents 130,000 to 140,000 people who are condemned to inadequate accommodation at present and who have qualified for homes from the local authorities. Is it good enough, is it just that so many of our people should be condemned to stay on the housing list for a long number of years because we have a Government in power with a Labour Minister who is not prepared to take any new initiative to try to increase output of local authority houses? It is just not good enough.

If the Minister reads back on his own Labour Party policy documents which have emanated over the years he will see that he is reneging on all of those plans and policies which have been adopted at Labour Party conferences down the years. He has taken no initiative to meet this so-called labour-socialist commitment. I suggest that he has only to look at the record of some previous Fianna Fáil Ministers in that Department and see the results which were brought about when the individual who held the office had a commitment, took the interest and the time, put the effort into it and took the required initiatives. Sitting back, looking for an easy time in Government, as the Minister seems to be doing when too much was landing on his plate and then deciding to move over to the Department of Energy where things were not happening so quickly, the brief was not so big and the responsibilities were fewer, is an indication of the lack of commitment of some of the Labour Members of this Government and it is time that was highlighted.

People who report on politics here and who claim to have some expertise should look behind some of the headlines that they are being fed by the Government and make their own assessment and judgment. When the Estimates for Public Services were published many newspaper reporters said that there was a massive increase in the money being provided by the Government for the construction of houses and this would be a big boost to the construction industry and everybody would be delighted at this commitment by the Government. The Irish Times local government correspondent said at the time the Estimates were published:

The Estimates for the Department of the Environment show that a major effort is being made to increase finance for housing and services. This move will be welcomed by the ailing construction industry which has been pressing for a strong injection of capital into the housing programme ... No doubt the Construction Industry Federation will say that all this goes nowhere near what is required to put the building industry back on an even keel. It is, nevertheless, good to see such percentage increases in a time of general depression.

He said that the construction industry could take a certain amount of encouragement in that the subsidy for local authority housing had been increased from £124 million in 1983 to £154 million in 1984, an impressive rise of 24 per cent. All that is being met in the housing subsidy is a commitment which exists, which is ongoing and which must be met by the Government. Irrespective of whether they feel that they should or should not meet it, the Government were not enabled to exercise any discretion in the allocation to meet a housing subsidy. Once they had agreed on the rents to be charged by local authorities the housing subsidy had to meet the balance, and not one new house was going to be constructed with any of that £154 million which was provided merely to pay the subsidies on houses which had been built in previous years. The local government correspondent in The Irish Times does not seem to recognise that fact and the Government get an easy ride.

Of course it is obvious that there was no big welcome from the construction industry who knew well the significance of those figures and that there was no 24 per cent increase in capital for new house construction. In fact, there was no increase at all and the Minister's excuse was that with tighter tendering and a cut-back in the margin for the builders he would be able to get the same number of houses for 1984 as were built in 1983 without providing any additional money. What he is not saying is that by so doing he is expecting many builders to tender uneconomical quotations which will force more of them into bankruptcy. The sad experience of our construction industry over the past year is that so many have found that they cannot continue in business with the crippling level of taxation on individuals and industry. The Government's reluctance to support the house building industry by any increase in finance makes it strange that the Minister again repeats his expectation of maintaining the level of output without providing any more money in a year in which inflation will run to about 10 per cent. Obviously, the squeeze is on the builder and the Minister has no concern for those who are being thrown out of business. That may be because anyone who is self-employed or is an employer is, therefore, a capitalist, while the Minister claims to be a socialist, thus having no interest in capitalists. He is not too bothered if that person goes out of business. However, in putting the employers and construction firms out of business the Minister is also putting many hundreds of building workers and skilled operators out of work and throwing them on the unemployment heap. We have the resulting crisis of high unemployment at a time when it is coming down in all European and major world trading countries. We are running against the global trend on unemployment because of continuing Government policies.

The future looks very bleak indeed for those who have been traditionally employed in this industry. Already there are about 50,000 registered as unemployed and in a statement issued this morning the representatives of the Construction Industry Federation said that the number is increasing at the rate of 900 per month. I did not hear any contradiction from the Minister on that figure and the officials of his Department are in very close touch with the construction industry and the professions attached to it. There is constant monitoring of employment trends and trends generally in that industry. The Minister knows that the trend has been depressing and that his Government have done nothing to try to reverse it. If he had tried and failed, he could claim some credit that at least he did try. The sad fact is that his predecessors, the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring and the Minister, Deputy Quinn, did not try. They made many brave statements and optimistic forecasts, none of which was fulfilled and all of which were contrary to what we on the Fianna Fáil benches were saying was the real position. The statistics at the end of the calendar year show that what we and the industry were saying was correct, that unemployment is creeping steadily up at an alarming rate. I am afraid that it will reach a level where the State might not be able to continue to support payment of the correct rate for the numbers who will become unemployed. The Government are so bankrupt of policies that there appears to be no hope of a reversal or any effort on the Government's part to bring about a reversal of that bad trend and instil confidence in industry and growth.

The plea that if we allow our wage costs to be strictly controlled everything else will fall into order is absolutely pathetic. It is a very weak argument because wage costs are only one of the elements and it is not good enough that a Government should sit on the sidelines hoping that the changes will come if they stick to that one aspect of policy. As the Government will find out in practice, that is an area over which they have very little control when it comes down to brass tacks and the final decisions are made. Nobody knows that better than the Minister, Deputy Kavanagh who had a very good record for competence when Minister for Labour and who will agree with me on that. Asking that no provision should be made in the Estimates for wage increases is treading on very dangerous ground. The Government cannot expect that the public service, any more than any other sector, will accept 10 per cent inflation without demands from them for some compensation to try to maintain their standard of living. It is like a dog chasing its tail and we should break out of this terrible slide.

In the unemployment debate last week suggestions were made from this side as to some measures by which the Government should try to bring a response from the community, resulting in increased investment and, it is hoped, encouraging growth. The response has been pathetic. The country is suffering and will continue to do so until the Government change their policy and take some initiative or move over and let somebody else take initiatives and deal with the problem.

Part of the dismal record of these two gentlemen who have deserted the environmental brief was the impression given during the course of a debate on a Private Members' Bill that if the Fianna Fáil Opposition agreed to have the Bill moved for Committee Stage from the Dáil to a Committee of the Dáil, it would be favourably received and progress might be made. Foolishly, at the time we agreed to that move, but when we began to discuss in committee the Housing (Private Rented Dwellings) Bill which was moved by me — which made provision for rent cases standing for hearing before the District Court but not yet heard to be transferred to the new Rents Tribunal — we discovered that the Government attitude was to stonewall and oppose the Bill tooth and nail, despite the completely different impression given by the Tánaiste when he asked us to agree to the transfer of the Bill to a committee.

This was a salutary lesson for the Fianna Fáil members in Opposition as to whether we should accept invitations of that kind from the Government in future, or indications of goodwill which could be so quickly reneged upon. The 500 or so rent cases which have been put before the District Court were all denied the opportunity of transfer to the Rents Tribunal. All sides of the House agreed that it would have been preferable and more humane to transfer these cases. We had good, authoritative legal advice that our proposal was not unconstitutional. We showed those arguments in a committee of this House but despite that, the attitude of the Deputies representing the Government side was that their riding orders were to oppose the Bill and that was that. Nobody will ever know the exact position. It was a very retrograde and unfair attitude on the part of the Government in denying mostly elderly people the right to have their cases heard before the Rents Tribunal. I understand from reports that the Rents Tribunal is now working satisfactorily, although there may be some cases about which people might not be too happy. The general opinion appears to be that people are happy enough with the results of the work of the Rents Tribunal, but that is not a complete survey of the whole picture.

The construction industry is not concerned with the construction of houses only even though the housing aspect of it is solely the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment. At Cabinet that Minister is also the spokesperson for the construction industry in general which includes all forms of building work here. The output in that industry has taken a very serious turn. It was showing strong growth in 1980-81 but in 1982 that growth disappeared and, according to statistics, it has been missing since. We are told that 1983 was another dismal year with an approximate drop in output of 10 per cent if one bases it on 1975 prices to show the effect of inflation. The worrying aspect of this is that the decline is continuing. When the Government took office they reduced the published estimates of the Fianna Fáil Government for construction work by £220 million. Before they took office the Coalition said at various centres, in particular to trade union representatives, that they intended pumping an extra £100 million into building. They reneged on that promise. That matter was debated last year and I will not deal with it again. The Government cut out that money an overall reduction of £220 million on stated intentions.

The tragedy in this area is that when the Public Capital Programme outturn for 1983 was published it showed that those reduced figures resulted in an expenditure which was £142 million less than the published capital programme. If one adds those figures together one will see that millions of pounds have been taken away from the construction area although the Government had indicated that that money would be spent. There was the loss of £220 million, £100 million and £142 million which they did not spend. As a result £462 million less was spent on construction than was indicated by the Government. That is a serious matter and that decision has had a very detrimental effect on the industry. It is the real reason why there is such a lack of confidence in the industry. Having suffered the reduction of £220 million, and having failed to fulfil their promise to add £100 million, the Government decided on spending £142 million less than their published programme. That has had a shattering effect on the confidence in the industry. It is clear that the Government are not committed to construction.

It is known that some Ministers, in particular the Minister for Finance, harbour serious doubts about the benefit to the economy of making any investment of State funds in the building industry. The value of jobs in that industry do not rate very high with the Minister for Finance unfortunately.

I should like to make a brief reference to the position of local authorities. The decision to reduce the grant in lieu of rates has had a disastrous effect on those bodies. I urge the Minister to publish as soon as possible whatever proposals he has for financing local authorities in the future. He should also publish the proposals he said he has for reorganising local authorities. The position has deteriorated to such a state that the whole structure of local democracy is under serious threat. I have doubts as to whether the Minister is serious about his stated intention of tackling this. I urge him to be serious and to tackle this problem in a fundamental and radical manner. He should avail of this opportunity when this matter is under active consideration in his Department to make a bold step to revolutionise local government rather than fiddling around and making a few minor changes, changing some boundaries or introducing new local authorities to meet the need that exists where there have been large urban developments since the structures were first introduced. If he does that rather than nibbling at the problem he will earn the respect and applause of the community. He will be doing a great service to the country and future generations. The existing structure may have served us well but it has been wobbly in the last five years. It is losing respect and causing frustration to those who are serving as elected members. There is a growing disinterest and disenchantment with existing structures. Unless something is done quickly existing structures will have a detrimental effect on peace and prosperity and democracy as we know it.

I should like to assure the Minister of the fullest encouragement from the Opposition benches for the initiatives I have mentioned. I am not greatly encouraged from what has happened to date that any such great initiatives will be taken. There is no evidence of a willingness to step out and do radical things from the performance of incumbents in the Department of the Environment in the last 16 months. A serious crisis exists. I am glad to see the Minister of State, Deputy Donnellan, present because, as a member of Galway County Council, he will be aware of a circular distributed by the county manager of that body indicating the extent of the problems. The experience in Galway is similar to what is happening in other counties. I should like to quote from a statement sent to members of the council prior to going on a deputation to the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy O'Brien. On the question of roads, the county manager stated:

The council's estimate statement envisaged serious implications for the road service and employment unless there was a substantial increase of road grants. These grants had not been allocated when the estimates were prepared. The grant notification was received on 29 February, 1984. By reason of a major change of conditions attached to the grant it is necessary to explain that what appears to be an increased grant is, in fact, a reduced grant. It has been the established practice for many years — for a variety of reasons — to carry forward, for expenditure in the succeeding year, part of the grant allocation for any specific year. In this way the expenditure on road grants in any particular year would take account of the following arrangements:—

(a) expenditure would be incurred from a previous year's grant;

(b) expenditure would be incurred out of the current year's grant;

(c) expenditure would be carried forward to a subsequent year;

(d) necessary over-expenditure, in a particular year, could be financed from the subsequent year's grant.

In the circular allocating grants for 1983, received on 18 March 1983, it was stipulated that "Grants allocated for strengthening, surface dressing, or special maintenance had to be used for the purpose stated."

The Galway County Manager said he had to comply with that new condition. Therefore, the 1984 figure had to be adjusted because of those new conditions. The allocation was £4,040,000 while the allocation for the previous year was £3,870,000.

Mr. Donnellan

Is the Deputy dealing specifically with Galway?

Mr. Molloy

I am giving Galway as an example but something similar is happening in all other counties. Out of the Galway allocation for this year the county manager has to deduct unrecouped expenditure to the end of 1983 of £719,333 and over-expenditure on works to the end of the year of £265,307, a total of £984,640, leaving £3,055,360. Then if we add in respect of one unpaid grant and over-expenditure another £151,000 that brings the total of £3.206 million and the 1984 grant is therefore reduced from £4.04 million to £3.2 million so in actual fact the road grant allocation to Galway County Council for 1984 is £663,000 less than it was in 1983. This is disastrous. The effect of that will mean massive unemployment and the manager goes on to indicate in that case in Galway, taking together the funds available from specific road grants and other council sources, the sum available for employment is now at the latest assessment showing a shortfall of £1,345,000. This is equivalent to a total lay-off of all the roads workforce for 16.5 weeks and if 70 redundancies are introduced the lay-off could be reduced to 15 weeks. These figures take account of the cost of redundancy payments.

When one reads the Minister's introductory statement one does not see any of that type of effect at ground level but those who sit on local authorities know what the effect is. They know what is happening and they know it is disastrous. They know it is disaster that is particularly confronting those who are unemployed. These things will be immediately effective and the standards of our roads are deteriorating at such a rate now there is serious concern that they will soon become impassable in many places and that will have a detrimental effect on industry and the development of rural areas.

I want to move on now to an area in which the Government have a very negative approach. I refer to the programme for the settlement of the travelling community. A very excellent report on the travelling people was published some time ago. It was published in February 1983. That report makes a major recommendation to the effect that a statutory body be established to oversee the implementation of the programme. I note the chairman of that body, a Mr. Walter MacEvilly, had several reservations and published his own view by way of an addendum to the report. I must say I agree wholeheartedly with everything Mr. MacEvilly says.

It is important that as a matter of national priority we should set about implementing a programme for the provision of adequate accommodation for every member of the travelling community. It is not an insurmountable problem. There are now only 1,300 families living in caravans on the roadside. If the provision of proper housing for 1,300 families is beyond the capabiities of the Government then they should resign.

Mr. Donnellan

That accusation is very unfair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order. The Minister will please control himself.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister will have an opportunity to speak. There is no need for ignorant interruptions. This is a very serious social problem. There are poor, deprived people living in the most appalling conditions, conditions none of the settled community would tolerate for a week, never mind for a lifetime, and it behoves every one of us to dedicate ourselves to achieving the settlement of all these families as quickly as possible.

I have long experience of the difficulties that lie in the path of anyone charged with responsibility for implementing this programme but I believe if the will is there among those who control policy, and the responsibility is clearly that of the Minister for the Environment, and it is there that Mr. MacEvilly also claims it lies and should remain, then all that is required, as he says, is a fresh approach to the problem by the Minister and his Department. If the will is there the problem will be solved. Rather than have Minister of State, Deputy Fergus O'Brien, dealing with a variety of matters or acting as a kind of fill-in for his Minister when he is absent or away on holidays, the Government should appoint one individual, the Minister of State, with full responsibility for the implementation of a settlement programme for the 1,300 travelling families who have not got decent homes. He should be given sole responsibility.

As I see it, there are three ways in which the programme can be implemented. First of all it is essential that an adequate number of hard stands be provided in each county and the Department should ensure not just that 100 per cent grants are made available for the acquisition and construction of these hard stands but that there are unlimited funds available for the provision of full back-up services. This is where the whole thing has been falling down, where inadequate sums are being provided to ensure the continuation of the essential back-up services required. These are all listed statistically in different chapters of the report to which I referred earlier.

The problem of numbers exists really in only two counties, Dublin and Galway. The size of the problem in other counties in not a major one so I think the concentration should be on Dublin and Galway. That is not to say other counties should be ignored. Every county should be considered to ensure that every single family is housed. The first step then is to ensure an adequate number of hard stands. We have at the moment the ridiculous situation where the courts are refusing to apply the law where there is illegal parking on roadsides and other unauthorised places, illegal parking which is causing serious interference and upset to the settled community adjacent to these areas. Great tension is building up between the settled community and the travelling community and until the proper authorities, the Government and the local authorities working hand in hand, set about an immediate programme to provide an adequate number of hard stands the courts will not apply the law, and rightly so. It is necessary for the local authorities to perform their task and my suggestion has always been that an adequate number of hard stands be provided, much more than just the number of known caravan dwellers at a particular town. There is constant movement. There are different numbers in the summer as compared with the winter. The travelling people move from place to place. We have to accept all the traditions of the travelling community and recognise them in drawing up plans designed to make full provision for them.

It is imperative that a number of these hard stands be provided simultaneously. No one area should be asked to carry the main burden. These hard stand areas should not be large or designed to cater for huge numbers. If that happens they become unmanageable. Tensions grow and the difficulties become greater between the different communities. If there was a determined commitment at Government level, with a Minister having sole responsibility for setting about the implementation of this type of programme, the problem would be solved very quickly. All these people could be properly accommodated within a period of five years. That would be a worthwhile achievement. It is something of which we could be proud. We cannot be proud of the present situation.

There is, then, the system of group housing for the travelling community and also the allocation of ordinary housing in local authority estates. There are three stages and there should be a concerted movement simultaneously on each front involving the fullest possible discussion and consultation with the residents in each area where it is proposed these facilities should be located. The facilities should be spread in such a way that they would not involve a big concentration of travelling families in one area. At the same time the travelling community should not be isolated from one another in too small units.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order. Would the Minister please keep quiet?

Mr. Molloy

If nothing else was achieved from this debate than a commitment from the Minister that he would set up a determined programme for the settlement of the remaining 1,300 families living in caravans who are not properly housed, then a major day's work will have been done. I want to assure the Minister of the very fullest support from this side of the House in implementing such a programme, provided the fullest consultation takes place and that officials do not act in an arbitrary way and seek to impose solutions. That has not proved successful in the past. If the solution of this problem was so simple that all it required was a stroke of the pen by somebody sitting behind an office desk, then the problem would be solved years ago.

This is a real social problem which is on the conscience of every Irish man, woman and child. It is a scar on society which we should work to remove as quickly as possible. It is not a huge problem in the sense of numbers, but the tragedy shown in this report is that due to the lack of facilities for the travelling community in recent years, some of those allocated homes found that when their children came of marriagable age, there were no homes for them to go to and they had to go back on the road again, starting the cycle again. There is a danger that the little progress which has been made so far will be lost unless the type of plan I am suggesting is undertaken immediately.

I congratulate my colleagues, Deputy Ray Burke and Deputy Woods, who were the then Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Health, who set up this review body and asked them to produce this excellent report. We are not in office unfortunately to see its implementation, but I am suggesting how I would like to see this problem tackled. I am aware from the Minister's statement that a group of Ministers have been brought together, that they have been looking at this problem and that they will be making suggestions on what they intend doing about the recommendations in the report. They have been meeting a long time now but I have not yet seen any results.

I am telling the Minister what I think he should do, but I hope the Government decide to do something positive and that adequate finance will be provided. Time and time again I have seen county managers enter into commitments with local communities but those commitments were not fulfilled. In many cases this was not the manager's fault, there was a lack of funds to provide the fullest possible back-up service required in each case. I saw situations where caretakers were to be permanently on site, where sites were to be kept in tip-top condition and so on, but none of this was implemented. Many of the undertakings were impossible to comply with. The solving of this problem will involve the most extensive discussion and painstaking consultation, planning and care. I believe this problem warrants the appointment of a Minister of State.

I suggest that a joint committee of this House be set up. I am chairman of an Oireachtas committee but I would resign in the morning if I thought I could participate in a joint committee which would be given power to become involved actively in promoting this work throughout the country, but that is not the way we operate in our democracy. In this country the responsibility lies solely with the Minister. He does not have to share any of that responsibility with the Opposition parties. Therefore, all I can do is urge him to set about that task and to remove that scar which is on the consciences of our people. I can assure him of the fullest possible support from this side of the House, provided painstaking care is given and provided the required amount of money is made available. The limited funds available at present are not adequate to ensure the implementation of these recommendations.

We owe it to the people who have been deprived from birth of adequate education, health services and a roof over their heads to protect them from the elements. We are all crying out with shame to have this problem dealt with and the way forward is shown by Mr. MacEvilly. I do not agree fully with the idea of setting up another statutory body because another layer of bureaucracy will only delay the matter and that is not the ideal solution. I urge the Minister to read Mr. MacEvilly's recommendations and to follow them. He will have the fullest possible support from everybody on this side of the House.

Mrs. A. Doyle

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Vote. I have been a member of local authorities in County Wexford for over ten years and have at least a small appreciation of the difficulties facing that sector at present. As the Minister rightly pointed out, local authorities make an important and indispensable contribution to national life in the various areas of their traditional responsibility, and the purpose of this Vote is to channel money to the local authorities for these purposes.

I sometimes wonder if any of us realise, if the Government realise, how heavily we rely on local authorities to give effect to important national policy in the areas of services and infrastructures. There is a very long list of items involved — housing road development, planning, environmental protection and fire safety. There are areas people do not realise local government are involved in. The list is endless: waste disposal, swimming pools, libraries, parks, burial grounds, abbatoirs, malicious damage, sheep dipping, courthouses, water safety, coast protection, land drainage, piers and harbours, and so on. The public do not fully realise what is involved in a vote like this and how far what we are discussing touches our lives, no matter what part of the country we live in.

These services are taken for granted. Members of local authorities are subject to a lot of criticism, much of it unfounded, because people do not realise all that is involved. This is a particularly difficult time for local government because finances are perilous. Many authorities are on the brink of insolvency. Wexford County Council is an example, but there are many others. The Minister mentioned the traditional areas of responsibilities, there is a review of financing and reorganisation of local government going on at present, but at a time when local authorities are finding it impossible to meet demands for essential services in the areas of roads, repairs, housing and so on I find it hard to understand why an issue such as courthouses still comes under this Vote. That is a relic of the old grand jury system.

Take many of the other subjects I mentioned which are the responsibility of local government. It is time the sheep dipping sector became the responsibility of the county committees of agriculture. Water safety and coast protection are the responsibility of maritime local authorities because the Office of Public Works cannot undertake all this work. The list of such work is endless and it could be 20 years before they get around to doing some of the jobs which are so badly needed. Wexford is no exception. We have areas which are in serious need of repair and the local authority have to put their hand into their pockets. We do not have the money but we must do something about this. It would be false economy to say we cannot do this work because we do not have the money. We must protect our local and national amenities. The local authorities must be vigilant and ensure that the job is done. If others cannot do it, we must ensure that it is done before it is too late.

I have to remind myself from time to time how important the employment sector of local government is. We rightly criticise the amount spent by the Exchequer in the public services but 35,000 people employed in local government would add up to a sizeable number of industries. The 200 or more people employed by Wexford County Council would represent a major industry in the area which has critically high unemployment. Wexford town has 26 per cent unemployment, the highest in the region. It is easy to forget this and to be critical of public spending but when we see how we are affected it is very hard to accept some of the cuts. It is hard to put our mouths where our money is and vice versa.

The whole financial background to local government has been well documented here and there is no need for me to dwell on it although it would not be correct to speak on environmental matters without alluding to it. Again we forget just how perilous the state of local government finances is. Of course we understand why this is so but it is very hard to find solutions. The various circumstances which have caused the present difficulties have been well documented. Domestic rates were abolished in 1978, a decision which was applauded, but they were abolished without introducing a viable and sustainable method of financing local government, which has created a major problem. Farmers then withheld their rates on agricultural land on a considerable scale, as the Minister put it, and this case was based on the unconstitutionality of the Griffith PLV system of 1852 on the basis that it was inequitable as there was no appeal against it as in the case of commercial rates. We all know that the farmers were successful in the action but it has caused major problems and ripples throughout the country as a result.

There is a figure of over £20 million owed to various local authorities on agricultural rates. That is an enormous sum to be found by the local authorities in question. Wexford was extremely badly hit as over £2 million is owed to us. Even the financing of this debt is causing serious problems. If some of the money used to service our debts could be freed so that it could service structures and look after the work we should be doing in the county, Wexford would benefit tremendously.

There is a figure of over £2.3 million owed to Cork as a result of the constitutional case taken by the farmers. Money is owed to Dublin, Kilkenny, Kildare, Wicklow, Meath and Tipperary; a sum of £20 million is the cumulative owed.

When the Government came to office and as a vote of confidence in local government, they put an additional £31.5 million into supporting the rates. This went some way towards helping the cash flow position of local authorities but it was only a drop in the ocean. We inherited a situation in which local government had been under-funded and the importance of that had not been recognised. Of this £31.5 million, a sum of £5 million went directly towards agricultural relief grants or, more correctly, towards the grant in lieu of rates for agricultural land.

There is also a strong policy of insistence on value for money for local government spending, especially in the area of house building. Sometimes, however, I question whether it is not false economy to be so stringent with regard to conditions of accepting schemes for housing and indeed individual cottages. If the Government could allow more discretion in this area, if houses could be built at or below unit cost and the number of houses being built was kept up, local authorities should be allowed to devolve their own schemes and build up to a standard and not down to a price.

In rural areas we can get value for money in certain areas which is more difficult to achieve in urban areas. In Wexford, for example, we can build lovely, natural stone walls more cheaply than block walls which the Department are now insisting on. I appeal to the Minister to use his discretion and to allow some autonomy to the various authorities to build to as high a standard as possible within the confines of a unit price and in the number of houses he expects to be built. There will be tremendous demand for more local authority housing in the years to come. At present there are 35,000 people on local authority housing lists but I do not think this represents the real figure. Those of us who are involved know that you cannot measure the demand for housing until a scheme is mooted in an area. After that people whom you did not know existed are on the local authority lists for rehousing, young people in totally unserviced caravans with two, three and four children. At present in Wexford we are building a house for a family of eight who are living in a caravan, not even a mobile home. One wonders where these people have been over the years as we built scheme after scheme. I am convinced that the figure of 35,000 is half the real figure needing to be accommodated. It is one of the great challenges that the Government have to meet and I am delighted that they are measuring up to it. If we can put decent roofs over all our people's heads and if our children can be reared in decent housing conditions with proper sanitary services they have a reasonable chance of getting a good start in life.

As the Minister pointed out, two thirds of local government spending is directly from the Exchequer. Some years ago the figure was only 40 per cent. It is felt by those who are involved in local authorities that our financial independence is gone. Members of county councils are merely rubber stamps. It is very hard, especially for younger members, to have a sustained interest in a system which gives them no chance to control their own destiny. We have to keep reminding them how important local government is and how it touches on so many matters affecting our lives. A massive public relations job needs to be done in this area because the public are critical and members of local government and local authorities have always been the object of amusement and the butt of criticism. Perhaps it is our own fault because we did not spell out the important nature of our service and how indispensable we are in implementing the policies of the day. Perhaps we have not said often enough that democracy depends on sound local government. It is in the interests of the PR system here to ensure we have a sound, healthy system of local government.

In the review which the Minister has promised, I hope he turns his attention to the question of making it easier to extend local boundaries. This has been a very complicated procedure involving the transfer of very large sums of money from one local authority in an area to another. If we cannot facilitate the smaller corporations and urban councils in extending their boundaries to encompass the natural development of urban towns, the political base is gone. In Wexford town at present, the corporation have six independent members out of 12. That may seem a very high proportion but the reality is that the quota is so low at election time now that PR no longer works. This is the case in many urban councils and corporations. If you get three or four hundred No. 1 votes you are elected to the local authority in question. I am a strong believer in political parties. The discipline of the party Whip, even though we might have different ideologies and policies, is very important for this country. It ensures that there is collective responsibility and that there is a certain discipline in what is said. It ensures there is little irresponsible mouthing without having to put down one's money. I believe in the system of political parties. If the Minister cannot ensure in his present review an easier method of extending urban boundaries local democracy will be gone, the political parties will be wiped out and that will not be in the interest of anyone, least of all the public.

Very difficult decisions have to be made with regard to future long-term financing of local government. I hope we face up to them and accept our responsibilities, particularly those who are members of local authorities. From time to time all of us play politics in local government, particularly when estimates are being discussed. It is amazing how easily we line up on different sides. On the very difficult issue of charges in local government, Fianna Fáil's record is comparable with ours.

The Minister pointed out that reasonable charges must be levied, and the Financial Provisions Act, 1983, allowed for this. We are asking only for reasonable charges. In Ireland we have always accepted the principle of paying for goods. If one wishes to buy an article one goes into a shop and pays for it. However, we have never accepted that we must also pay for services, even though this principle is accepted in the rest of Europe and the rest of the world. For some reason, people here expect services for nothing. We put everything down as "free", whether it be school transport, education, medical cards or hospitalisation. We use the word "free" in totally the wrong context. Everything has to be paid for by somebody. Particularly in the area of providing services for local government, people will have to accept reasonable charges, and I stress the word "reasonable", as did the Minister. Nothing is free, somebody has to pay. We cannot go back all the time to the central Exchequer or to the taxpayer and this is what we are talking about basically. All of us agree that the taxpayers are too heavily loaded, that our taxation system is penal and that they are carrying too much of the burden and this applies particularly to the PAYE sector. It behoves all of us to sell the idea that if we want a service, if we want good, strong, effective local government we will have to contribute reasonably in the future.

As far back as December 1972 Fianna Fáil advocated charges for local services and in their White Paper entitled "Local Authority Finances" they said:

The Government consider that the maximum possible amount of revenue should be derived by local authorities from charges for services, fees and other non-tax sources.

It then proposed to confer on local authorities a general power to make charges for services and to undertake trading services where these were ancillary to their normal function. The White Paper clarified the Government's intentions in regard to planning permissions, suggesting in 1972 that in regard to planning permissions £500,000 could be raised by charges for the processing of planning applications. That was very sound. It has been adopted and all of us agree with it. It has been one of the least contentious matters in the introduction of charges. The mystery remains why it took so long for all of us to see that this was an area where people should contribute to the services they were receiving. It also had the effect of decreasing the number of speculative planning applications. Because it cost them nothing people applied for planning permission to test the market even though they had no intention of selling a site or building a house.

When Fianna Fáil came back to office in 1977 it was not long before they set about reviving their policy of charging for services. Twice during 1980, on 1 February and on 22 August, the then Minister, Deputy Barrett, sent circulars to local authorities asking them to review their charges. His successor, Deputy Burke, spelled out his Government's intentions more clearly in January 1981. In a speech to the county managers in Butler's House, County Kilkenny, he said:

I would like to dwell a little on this last possibility, that of charging for services. Local authorities have already been alerted by my Department to their powers to charge directly for certain services. I have been asked to review their practice in this regard and, where appropriate, to consider bringing the level of charges up-to-date. For my part I have been looking at the need for legislative action in certain areas to increase the scope for justifiable local authority charges.

Fianna Fáil also took action and I commend them for it. We are not divided on this. It was Fianna Fáil who sponsored the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1982, which provided the legal basis for planning charges. We followed this up with the Financial Provisions Act, 1983. While we can agree in this House on the necessity for reasonable charges for services, it behoves all of us to try to sell this idea to our own members at local government level. It is not proving easy.

I have complained in this House about removing powers from members of local authorities, about the executive function of the managers versus the reserved function of the members. I was told that if members do not accept their responsibility the only alternative was to give that responsibility to the managers. For the sake of the future of local government and local democracy, I appeal to all those concerned to accept their responsibilities in this area and to explain the situation to the public. They have a choice of paying reasonable charges for essential services or facing the possibility of local government becoming extinct in the near future. Many of the smaller authorities are seriously threatened and will be in jeopardy unless we resolve the long-term financial position and do that very quickly.

The Minister has provided £550 million for the housing programme and I commend him for this. In times of scarce resources it is important that we spend as much as possible on local authority housing. Of that amount £211 million is for capital spending on local authority housing. However, there is one smaller area and I should like the Minister to consider it. As he has pointed out, the central objective of our national housing policy is that every household should be able to obtain a suitable dwelling at a price or rent they can afford. The Committee on Legislation is considering the question of the age of majority. A major problem I encounter in my clinics, and I know this is a problem also for other Deputies, is that many young married couples wish to avail of local authority loans, HFA loans or SDA loans to build or buy their own houses but if they are not 21 years they are not entitled to borrow money or to get a local authority loan. People can marry at 16 years and vote at 18 years but they cannot borrow legally until they are 21 years. As far as I am concerned this matter must be rectified as quickly as possible. We have a strict screening procedure, and the income limits and the guidelines are laid down. I do not see any risk in lending to a 19-year old or a 20-year old who is in a secure job, who may be married and have one or two children, and particularly if their housing circumstances determine they are in need of rehousing. I urge the Minister to do everything possible to eliminate this problem of the age of majority so that young people may be able to borrow money to build houses for themselves. It is a major issue in Wexford and I imagine it crops up elsewhere also.

Another traditional responsibility of local government relates to roads. We have a major, on-going programme for construction, maintenance and improvement for our roadways. Large amounts of money have been and are continuing to be pumped into the national road system. I urge the Minister to look again at the deteriorating state of county roads. Unless we improve the road surfaces of our county roads and also examine the whole matter of longitudinal drainage we will have a major problem in the very near future. The surface of these roads is deteriorating at a very rapid rate and I do not think this is being appreciated. In County Wexford alone we will have a 50 per cent cutback in our surface dressing programme. Some roads are impassable and it is a waste of time to continue pouring tar and chippings into potholes when the sides of the roads and the whole construction of them is beyond an economically feasible condition to continue maintaining.

There is a matter which has been before the Department of the Environment, and the Departments of Social Welfare and Health are also involved. Some years ago Wexford County Council, because of the financial restraints on them, had to lay off about eight road workers in August and September. Those men had worked for years and wanted to continue working. Many of them had large families and when they signed on and got their unemployment money they were not taking home much less than they got when they were working, particularly when pay-related and unemployment benefit is taken into account. All of them preferred to be working. Even though the financial resources in the Department of the Environment were completely depleted at that time and there was no money to enable Wexford County Council or other local authorities to keep their road workers on, the Exchequer could still provide funds for the Department of Social Welfare to assist those men. Could we not have some system of inter departmental transfer of money during the year? If one Vote has run short and there is still money in another Vote, surely there should be some system — I know it is cumbersome and that we are into computers — to transfer money from one Department to another? If it is possible to do this we must do it particularly if it means keeping people, who want to continue working, doing jobs such as maintaining our roads which is part of our infrastructural service which is so important for the future of the country.

We need proper road services to attract industry to the country. We also need good water and sanitary services. We often forget how important the local government role is in attracting industry. I would like to commend Wexford County Council and Wexford Corporation who have never failed to meet the demands of the IDA or individual entrepreneurs when it comes to providing services if it means bringing an industry to a town. Local government bodies throughout the country respond in a positive way to attracting industry and this is not recognised. They provide the services if it means securing jobs, even if they have to do so at the pin of their collar.

We have heard from other speakers about many other aspects under this Vote. A great tragedy in County Wexford is the number of unserviced houses we have. I ask the Minister to see if any special money can be found to improve our existing housing stock. I agree with Deputy Molloy and the other speakers that in this day and age we cannot expect people to rear children without bathrooms and toilets and living in primitive conditions. These people, because of the large number on our local authority housing lists, often get caught in a limbo. They would probably be better off in vastly over-crowded conditions or caravans because they would be rehoused in proper conditions faster than they are at present living in unserviced, old, two up, two down type cottages with little hope of a bathroom or toilet being provided for them in the near future. Those houses are called sub-standard houses in Wexford. I know that technically, as far as the Department are concerned, that description is not correct. Surely it is sub-standard living if people have to rear their families without bathrooms or toilets. The Minister should see if he can provide once-off type grants to bring our existing unserviced housing stock up to an acceptable level. This would be appreciated by everybody concerned.

Wexford County Council have a very good record in relation to housing itinerants. Many Deputies have referred to the report on itinerants. I will not delay the House by going into this now. I welcome the report. Wexford County Council can be very proud of their record in housing itinerants over the last five years. I fully accept that the issue of numbers does not confront us to the same extent as it does in Dublin, Galway and some of the other counties but we have dealt with what we have as effectively as possible. We have a long way to go. We are talking in terms of 48 to 50 families in County Wexford on the roadside who need to be housed. We will not avoid our responsibility. I want to sound a word of caution in this area. Some years ago County Wexford were over-zealous in relation to our itinerant settlement programme. We were so zealous that we housed too many of the itinerants in the one housing scheme. Even from the itinerants' point of view we exacerbated their problems rather than helped them. They could not be integrated into the settled community and their children could not be integrated into the local schools. We did very little good for them.

The itinerants who want to be integrated into the settled community are entitled to be housed. We have a scheme of letting priorities, we accept their applications and we must look after those people the same as we do any members of our community. We must do it in such a way that they benefit from it. Wexford have never reneged their responsibility in this area. I doubt if consciously any local authority have reneged their responsibility in this area. It does not do us any harm to be told to pull up our socks and continue our efforts in this area.

I commend the Vote before the House. I have no doubt in the years left to the Minister in this Department, that things will go from good to even better and that the areas which need more attention will be attended to and the money found to provide for them.

Mr. S. Walsh

The Minister had a 45-page script when introducing his Estimate and looking at it one would regard it as a very fine document but what really matters is what it will achieve for the people and all the bodies concerned. The Minister at the beginning of his speech referred to the important work done by local authorities and to the need for reorganisation. As a member of Dublin County Council, the largest in the country, I realise the heavy responsibility on local authority and county council members. Members of local authorities are expected to meet their responsibilities in the stringent financial times we live in and not run away from them as has happened in many cases in Dublin.

The Minister referred to reorganisation and the problem of financing. He said he will be issuing a document later regarding reorganisation and new proposals to finance local authorities. Everybody will welcome this. I fully appreciate that since the abolition of rates the problem of financing local authorities is a very great one. There has not been any progress made in this field. I hope, when the Minister produces his new structures, they will be meaningful and will bring about a solution.

The Minister said it is common knowledge that the building construction industry has suffered a significant decline in output and employment in recent years and he is concerned to see that this deadline is halted and growth resumed as soon as possible. That is a very welcome statement from the point of view of seeing growth resumed and the decline halted. What proposals are there in this Estimate to ensure that that decline is halted and growth resumed? No matter how many local authority houses are provided annually it must be recognised that the real growth will emanate from the private sector which must be got moving. Have we really confronted the problems facing the building industry and ascertained what is wrong with the private sector? Is the finance available or have people involved in the building industry had so many setbacks they are not now anxious to continue developing land and so on making it available to the building industry?

One major problem confronting Dublin County Council is that of the provision of services in respect of which I see very little in this Estimate. The provision of services constitutes a major problem in the Dublin area. There is also the question of planning permissions and applications. I do not intend here to be critical of the planning officials of Dublin County Council, rather I would compliment them on doing a very good job. But with regard to the granting of planning permissions in the Dublin area there is what is called the by-law system. There is first planning permission and then the by-law approval. I think I am correct in saying that this does not obtain in other counties. If I am incorrect in maintaining that it applies to Dublin only, I apologise. This is a rather complex procedure. I am not advocating that standards be reduced but I would ask the Minister to examine this process to ascertain whether it can be simplified.

In regard to planning permissions for the building of single houses in rural areas I might refer particularly to the Bohernabreena, Brittas, Rathcoole and Newcastle areas where it is very difficult for an applicant to receive planning permission for a single dwelling particularly in regard to by-laws. Here I want to make myself perfectly clear: I am not advocating a lowering of standards but rather a simplification of the by-law procedures. In the Rathcoole, Newcastle and Saggart areas there are no services available — a sad situation within a radius of perhaps ten miles of the city centre — so that a local person cannot get planning permission to build a single house because of lack of facilities. I know that in rural areas septic tanks can be provided and so on. But here again the situation is difficult because these are regarded as high amenity areas. Yet there are enormous strictures imposed on local applicants. Heretofore an applicant for planning permission was able to deal with the matter himself, whereas a person seeking planning permission to build his own home now will require the services of an expert architect in order to deal with the problems with which he will be confronted. It is this aspect of planning permissions I would ask the Minister to have scrutinised.

As a member of Dublin County Council I might refer to the activities of Dublin Corporation in the county. The Minister of State, Deputy F. O'Brien, is a member of Dublin Corporation — he was once Lord Mayor. Dublin Corporation have built thousands of houses in the county, in the Tallaght and Clondalkin areas, and continue to do so. But their policy appears to be to move people from the city centre out to Tallaght, once a rural area with no facilities whatever. They are provided with a house only and the time has come when that situation must be reviewed. This matter has been raised on several occasions at county council meetings. We are now told that the housing co-ordinator, Mr. Morrissey, has approached the Minister in this regard. I am glad the Minister is present to hear my remarks because the problems in the Tallaght area are enormous, hundreds of families are being moved out to houses there from the city centre and, were it not for the work done by voluntary bodies, clergy, the principals of schools and so on, the problems being experienced would be even greater.

In view of the situation prevailing there one must ask: is it any wonder that we have a drugs problem. Families are being moved out there without any amenities or facilities. In the past it was possible to build houses and provide open spaces with sites available in the event of people wanting to build a community hall or some such other building. How can people, many of whom are unemployed, moving out from the city centre be expected to provide these facilities themselves? Unless there is a rethink in this area these problems will worsen. We raised this matter time out of number at county council meetings. Unfortunately I must place on record that the policy of Dublin Corporation appears to be merely to house people, deserting them thereafter — they are treated just as a number and no more. The day is long since past when that type of situation can be allowed to prevail. I appreciate that the provision of such amenities will cost money but nevertheless a rethink is urgently required. We have been assured at county council meetings by the housing co-ordinator that he has approached the Minister in this regard and, in replying, I hope the Minister will be able to assure me in this respect. As a Member of this House and of a local authority, representing the Tallaght area, naturally I compliment Dublin Corporation on the numbers of houses built, but I must be critical of their overall programme. I am glad to have had the opportunity of raising the matter in the Minister's presence.

Much has been said about travelling people in the course of the debate. We hear and read a lot about them. I was pleased to hear Deputy Avril Doyle laud Wexford County Council, saying that that local authority were proud of their record in this respect. The position is very different in the Dublin area. Unless the members of Dublin County Council accept their responsibilities in regard to this problem it will continue and worsen. People may have been inclined to think that this problem would die away but such has not been the case and it will not happen. Unless something is done about it, it will worsen. We have had many meetings of Dublin County Council at which we merely talked around the problem. We did not take any positive decisions and no progress was made. There is another meeting due to take place shortly. Unless some proper decisions are taken I do not know what will happen. I hope the Government will do something about the problem and instruct the county manager to proceed with the development of his programme. That is the only answer. The decent people in Tallaght and Clondalkin who purchased their own houses have been subjected to this kind of abuse for far too long. They have been very patient and have put up with a great deal. The time has come for a lead to be given.

If the members of Dublin County Council are afraid to face up to their responsibilities and want to renege on them the responsibility must be placed elsewhere. I am satisfied the Minister understands the problem but it is one thing to understand it and another thing to do something positive about it. There is a lot of talk about halting sites and so on. If some were provided it would be a start in the right direction. I fully support the programme of housing for itinerants. If we do not make a start the problem will get worse.

Dublin Corporation expect the council to solve all their problems. They have played a very small role in settling itinerants. I speak as one who has lived with this problem for many years and has heard it mentioned at various meetings. I fully support any proposals that may come before the county council which would do something about the problem. The Taoiseach was very quick some time ago to give instructions to his party members not to support certain actions and the time has now come for him to give instructions to them to be more considerate in relation to this issue. This problem cannot continue and I hope something positive will be done. I am pleased that the Minister is here and hope he will refer to this when replying.

In his speech the Minister referred to the waste disposal unit which he intends to provide at Baldonnel. There is a figure of £400,000 in the Estimate for this development. As one who is involved in industry I recognise the need for this kind of facility but I question the location. I ask the Minister to bear in mind what I have to say. This facility is to be sited in Baldonnel but it is strange that the people there cannot get planning permission to build houses. I am not talking about a scheme of houses but rather the local people seeking to build their own. They applied for planning permission but the applications were strongly opposed by the Department of Defence in Baldonnell. Now the people are expected to accept this waste facility. The Minister has stated that every effort will be made to meet the objections of the people and I appreciate that. There are decent people living there who have purchased their own houses and they were not objecting to the waste facility just for the sake of objecting. They are genuinely concerned. As a representative for the area I ask the Minister to meet their objections in a proper way. By that I mean that officials of the Department would meet them, discuss the problem and hopefully allay their fears.

The question of industrial waste and dumps is a matter that requires great attention. What I have to say relates not only to this Government but to other Governments. Is this something we have neglected? Should we have developed it to a greater extent? We should have known that the problem existed and would continue. It is very difficult for local authorities to acquire suitable land for dumps. The Minister should look at this from the point of view of his dealing with the council.

In his speech the Minister referred to the importance of a proper road structure. There is no doubt about that. We all appreciate that money is not readily available. However, money which is allocated for roads should be utilised to the best advantage. Many people find it difficult to understand why, when a section of newly laid road is completed and paid for by the county council, in a month or two some other group tears it up in order to provide another service. There should be greater co-ordination of services. I refer to the new Belgard road which connects Tallaght, the Naas dual-carriageway and Clondalkin. This is a section of road which cost a lot of money to build. It was opened by the chairman of the county council who is now a member of the Cabinet. There is a plaque to commemorate the opening of the road. About a month later An Bord Gáis moved in to lay the gas pipe and tore up the road. I appreciate that this was important but it illustrates how we must coordinate services.

When we hear of firms closing we tend to blame them for the way they managed their affairs and approached problems. An Bord Gáis must be subject to some Government Department and surely there could have been some kind of planning between that Department and the Department of the Environment. When this matter was raised at the council meeting we were told that An Bord Gáis would pay for it. It does not matter who pays for it because ultimately the money comes from the people. The time has come when a greater effort should be made in the co-ordination of services.

To come back to the question of local authority housing, there is no doubt that the Housing Finance Agency scheme is playing a major role in housing development at present from the point of view of the provision of loans. I am concerned here about the income limit which I appreciate has been raised to £10,000 recently. We find that a number of applicants who have been made redundant have received small allowances in redundancy payments of a few thousand pounds which, when included in their income, will put that income over the limit. I am not referring to people who may have drawn very substantial redundancy payments but to those who may have received a small redundancy payment and because of that are anxious to purchase houses and the little money they have received added to the income earned brings them above the income limit. It is very easy to stand up and speak about matters and sometimes very difficult to do something about them, but something should and can be done in this area and I ask the Minister to give some consideration to it because more and more people are being made redundant.

Time is running out and I do not wish to deprive other speakers of the opportunity to speak. I hope the Minister will bear in mind some of the points made in relation to the number of travelling people in the Tallaght area and what the people of Tallaght have had to suffer over the years, and here a number of members of Dublin County Council have failed to face their responsibilities. I ask the Minister to consider the question of facilities in the Tallaght area for people who have been moved out there from the centre city into local authority houses and who have no facilities whatsoever. Perhaps in some other Estimate we will hear about money being provided to help to solve the problem of drug abuse which is very much with us in parts of the city and county. The problems in the Tallaght area are major but is it any wonder that we have this type of problem in the present situation? Perhaps the Minister will have a rethink on the policies of the Department of the Environment and that might help the situation here.

Mr. Dowling

I hope that all who wish to speak will have an opportunity to make a contribution, as the previous speaker has said, but that may not be possible within the timescale. Nonetheless we see a great deal of interest in the Department of the Environment Estimate on the part of politicians. Most of us began our political career at local level and we are concerned about it on an ongoing almost daily basis. The Minister in his new position must be congratulated on what is a very ambitious programme. A large measure of taxpayer's money is being devoted to the Department of the Environment and our responsibility and obligation are to ensure that that money is spent wisely and that the best possible benefit for the entire community is derived from it. I know the time is running on.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has ten minutes.

Mr. Dowling

I hope to confine myself to that or even less. County councils have experienced in the last month or so the major reductions in relation in particular to secondary roads and county roads. My council have witnessed this particularly since the abolition of rates in 1978 which came into effect in 1979. A great amount of money has been withheld from us as a result of High Court decisions in relation to the valuation on farms and the rating of farm lands. Many local authorities have been left considerably short and therefore the whole road structure is at a level of decay and unless major investment is made in it in the immediate future it will cost a great deal more in the long term.

I would like to say how appreciative we are in Kilkenny to the Minister for the go-ahead for the Slieve Rue by-pass, the Waterford-New Ross roadway which is long overdue and for which we have campaigned for a long time. We hope to see considerable progress on that very important section of roadway which links the whole south-east from Cork to Rosslare through Waterford. That very important roadway is not up to the standard required, particularly when you consider that we are a member of the EEC.

One matter which may not have been mentioned in this debate is the level of VAT charged in the operation of local council schemes and programmes carried out by local council workers. A high level of VAT is charged then whereas contractors who do work at council level get away with a reduced level of VAT. That is extraordinary and the Minister should examine it seriously. The same level of VAT should apply whether the job is done by the local authority themselves and their workforce or by contractors. Certainly there should not be a variation of the order of 20 per cent between the two. If this matter could be remedied it could leave local authorities with additional money out of their allocation to proceed with essential work in their areas.

Local authority housing has been mentioned by previous speakers. We have been fairly successful in that. The programme for 1984 shows a considerable increase in expenditure. The number of houses completed in 1983 shows an increase over 1982 and the prerogative and aim of the Minister is to ensure that the level of local authority houses services the need where people cannot provide houses for themselves. I am concerned also about the level of return from some of these houses. This relates to the agreements drawn up by the National Tenants' Association. We are not getting anything like what we should be getting in return from rents of local authority houses. Maintenance on these houses is costing local authorities a considerable amount of money, which is recoverable from the Exchequer; nonetheless it is taxpayers' money that we are playing around with. Certainly we are committed to carrying out essential repairs. The structure of the house must be catered for, but we should at least get a return that justifies carrying out repairs.

I welcomed with open arms the setting up of the Housing Finance Agency and put on record my appreciation of the thinking behind that scheme. It has done immeasurable good in the area of house purchase. People who otherwise would never have had the opportunity now own their own houses because of this scheme. Like every other scheme, it needs modification and amending at different stages. In agreement with the previous speaker, I would like an increase in the upper limit of £10,000. This is a self-financing scheme which does not cost the taxpayer anything. While the upper limit is reasonable, nonetheless with the current uncertainty of employment, people may not be in a position to continue repayments to building societies, or under the SDA or other systems. The Housing Finance Agency is here to stay and I am glad that it was the brain child of a former Coalition Government. I wish to place on record the appreciation of many throughout the country who have benefited under the scheme. At the time of its introduction there was great opposition to it, even in my own county council. A fellow councillor, not of my political persuasion, described it as the greatest disaster ever perpetrated on house purchasers.

I am, unfortunately, constrained by the time available and would have liked to mention many more matters. I ask the Minister to give very serious consideration to allowing the Paulstown sewerage scheme to go ahead in 1984. This is an area within a short distance of Kilkenny city which has had no housing construction in the last number of years. Without a sewerage scheme, housing development cannot continue.

With regard to the statutory charges which are part and parcel of ongoing obligatory local authority payments every year and concern the Departments of Health, Education, including vocational education, Agriculture, Justice, the Board of Works, Social Welfare and even the Civil Defence, these have increased by as much as 50 per cent while rates have been kept to a minimum over the years. In his commitment to the reorganisation and re-structuring of local government, the aim of which is to make it more beneficial to the local community, the Minister must give serious consideration to having these statutory payments deleted. They should be the responsibility of the appropriate Department and not part of the local authority responsibility through the Department of the Environment.

Charging for services is not the most appropriate way of ensuring the viability of local authorities. There must be something more innovative such as a guarantee of a certain percentage of funds on an annual basis. Otherwise, we will eventually reach the stage reached with regard to rates some years ago. If charges for services such as water are increased continually, the public will refuse to pay them.

I congratulate the Minister and wish him well in his Ministry. I hope that after his being four years in that office, many of the problems raised here in the last few days will be solved.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister for the Environment to conclude.

Mr. Calleary

Before the Minister replies, I understood that this debate was finishing at 2.30 p.m.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is fixed by an order of the House and the Minister is to be called at 1.15 p.m.

Mr. Calleary

Many criticised some Deputies for not being in the House. I have been here since 11 o'clock this morning and have not had an opportunity to speak.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy had wanted to contribute to this debate, he would have had an opportunity to do so.

Mr. Calleary

I understand that our Whip stated that the debate would conclude at 2.30 p.m. Am I to understand that the Minister will speak for an hour and a quarter?

An Ceann Comhairle

No, Deputy, until 1.30 p.m. An order was made this morning. It is too bad that I have to read this. By agreement, the debate on Vote 28, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 1.30 p.m. and the Minister for the Environment shall be called at 1.15 p.m. Those are my instructions and that is what I am doing.

Mr. Calleary

I accept what the Chair is saying. However, there is a very bad breakdown in communication, as far as I am concerned.

An Ceann Comhairle

That matter does not rest with me. I am sorry, Deputy. The Minister to conclude.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Kavanagh)

First of all, I should like to thank all the Deputies who have contributed in this very interesting and full debate. I am sorry that other Deputies had not the time or perhaps the opportunity to contribute. I thank the Deputies for their good wishes to me in this Department and hope that their good wishes will be fulfilled over the next year in which we shall be working here and that we shall be able to produce the results which some have suggested could be done if we followed the advice being given here today and on previous occasions.

Deputy Avril Doyle listed the areas of responsibility of this Department and while her list was long it did not exhaust the list of matters which the Minister for the Environment has under his aegis. As Deputy Calleary suggested, a quarter of an hour would not do justice to all the comments made and I am limited to replying to some points which have been raised here. Certainly, I can assure the Deputies that their contributions will be noted and their ideas and comments on problems will be very fully considered by me in looking into the policy to be carried out in this very onerous Department.

I wish to make a general point about local authority finances, to which many Deputies have made reference. Deputy Molloy was particularly scathing in his remarks about the present position. I am very well aware that local authorities are experiencing problems and said that at the outset of my very full brief at the beginning of this debate which took almost an hour and a half to get through. I thought the Department deserved that attention so that I could give the fullest amount of information, which I did give. Any Deputy could refer to that speech and probably see the answers to some of the problems which were raised during the course of the debate.

Despite the impression given by some speakers, these problems are largely the result of financial difficulties brought on by actions taken by the previous Government, now the Opposition party. The rot set in — and we all know this — back in 1978 when domestic rates were abolished and no alternative local financing system was substituted. That failure led from one problem to another as time went on. It was exacerbated by the decision of the High Court on the derating of agricultural land. We all know that it had come to a point where decisions had to be taken and they were taken by this Government. The Government have restored the local authorities' discretion with regard to the structuring of local rates and widened their powers for raising revenues locally. Also, as an interim measure until more lasting solutions have been devised, the Government have greatly increased Exchequer support for local authorities in 1983.

In the course of his contribution Deputy Molloy placed a lot of blame on the Leader of my party and former Minister for the Environment, Deputy Spring. When the Tánaiste took charge of the Department of the Environment in 1983 he found that the Fianna Fáil Estimate for that year for the domestic rate grant was the same as that for 1982, not one penny had been added to it. The decision of our Government to add a further £31 million to the figure in the Fianna Fáil Estimate meant that local authorities got great relief. That figure has been maintained again in this year's estimate and some additional money will be added to it. I do not pretend that all needs will be met but with the additional powers being given to local authorities to raise money and the money being made available by the Department, services and employment can be maintained. That will occur if the opportunities given to local authorities to raise money are pursued vigorously. Deputy Molloy raised this issue as though we had not done anything but he was wise not to refer to the record of his party when in Government.

As far as grants to local authorities are concerned the Government grants and subsidies to them this year will amount to £663.3 million, an increase of £52 million or 10.3 per cent on the 1983 figure.

Mr. Molloy

Is the Minister referring to subsidies also?

Mr. Kavanagh

I am referring to the grants and subsidies that have been made available.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister referred to grants.

Mr. Kavanagh

The point made by the Deputy opposite was that Departments had got an increase of 8 per cent and local authorities got an increase of 0.8 per cent.

Mr. Molloy

In the grant in lieu of rates.

Mr. Kavanagh

The Deputy was misleading by trying to give the impression that the Estimate for all services in the Department was being increased by 8 per cent——

Mr. Molloy

The Minister is trying to mislead the House.

Mr. Kavanagh

——and the Deputy narrowed down his comment to 0.8 per cent for the rates support area. In fact, local authorities will have increases of 10.3 per cent in the grants and subsidies this year. Any increase in the Estimate for my Department will be passed on to the local authority area. As far as the rate support grants are concerned we have managed to maintain the £31 million and, in fact, added something to it. That answers very well one of the main points made by the Deputy opposite.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister did not refer to the reduction in new house grants.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister has but a few minutes to complete his contribution and he should be allowed to do so without interruption.

Mr. Kavanagh

I did not interrupt the Deputy once in the course of his contribution. In the few minutes available to me I will not have an opportunity of dealing with all the points raised. A number of speakers in the debate expressed hopes that the local government review would be comprehensive and far-reaching and that new proposals would bring a better system into being for the future. In general, my aims are to strengthen the local democratic system and to make it more efficient, and to meet these aims the review involves a broad examination of the organisation and operation of local government. There are many pressing problems, such as the inability of present structures to cope with modern social and economic demands, outdated town boundaries which have been left behind by urban growth — that was mentioned by many Members — and the lack of any structural response to the major expansion in the Dublin area. The Dublin area represents a big problem for us. There is also a need to review procedures, powers and functions so that local authorities can be enabled to act more effectively and flexibly in the interests of the community.

To suggest, as Deputy Fitzsimons did earlier, that the review is leaving local authorities in the position of not knowing whether they will continue to exist is to miss the whole point of the intended reorganisation. I can assure him, and Deputy Molloy, that I have no intention of adopting the latter proposals in his White Paper of 1971 which would have wiped out local government in all but the big towns. I can recall being actively engaged in opposing that White Paper. I am glad it did not get off the ground because if ever there was an attack on local democracy that White Paper stands out as the major attack on small and medium sized local authorities in all areas. I should like to assure the House that I will be looking to see how the system can be adopted and how functions can best be distributed to meet the circumstances which have resulted from urban growth in this city and other areas.

I fully appreciate that the building industry is having its difficulties and all Members must be aware of that. I accept responsibility for being in a position to do something in this area, and I am taking that responsibility seriously. There are two reasons for the difficulties of the building industry, the recession which we find ourselves in and the lack of private investment in the industry, both of which are to some extent interdependent. Deputy Fitzsimons criticised the Government for not providing extra funds in the budget for the industry. In my opening speech on the Estimate I took great care to explain the position relating to the building industry. Its problems do not arise primarily from the level of public capital investment in the industry which in fact has been maintained at high levels; the State is currently financing over 70 per cent of the industry's output. Growth in the industry must come about through increased private sector demand and investment, and it is only by encouraging this that we will see a return of significant growth in the industry.

Government policies are designed to create the conditions in which development will again freely take place. I should like to tell Deputies Molloy and Fitzsimons that their irresponsible free spending policies of the past were the major cause of our present difficulties and of the limitations on the further borrowing which can be undertaken now at home and abroad. As a result of those policies the building industry has been hit more than by any action our Government have taken. We will be endeavouring to improve that. The Government will make every effort in all Departments, particularly in the economic Ministries, to improve the position in the economy so that the building industry which always reacts to any improvements can move forward.

I do not agree with Deputy Molloy's attack on the housing output of the Government. The area of housing output which is most directly under the Government influence is of course the local authority house building programme. Deputy Molloy in his contribution conveniently ignored the fact that as a direct result of the increased level of capital investment in the programme by the Government the number of new local authority houses built in 1983 was the highest since 1979. The Deputy was very selective. As I have already pointed out, local authority new house completions at 6,190 in 1983 were 500 higher than in 1982 — Fianna Fáil were in power for most of that time — and the number of houses in progress at the end of 1983 was 1,000 higher than at the end of the previous year and employment on the programme was 500 higher on average than in 1982.

Furthermore, I am satisfied that the provision of £211 million for the programme in 1984, will, having regard to the good value being obtained in tender prices and the improved cost control procedures, maintain the programme at the higher level achieved in 1983.

Progress towards the Government's housing targets is, of course, dependent on growth in the economy generally. The Government's policies have contributed to a return to significant economic growth in 1984 and I expect this to be reflected in an increased activity in the house building programme in the private sector this year.

Mr. Molloy

Is it true that housing completions were down last year by 2½ per cent? That cuts through all the waffle. It was the lowest in five years.

Mr. Kavanagh

Deputy Walsh raised many interesting points but, unfortunately, in 15 minutes I cannot deal with them adequately. I should like to refer to the question of the travelling people, a topic mentioned by many Members but, in particular, by Deputy Walsh who is well versed in the problem which exists in his constituency. I am glad to say that the Minister of State in my Department is considering a programme to deal with the problem. I will certainly be very active in seeing that the proposals in the report are brought forward as quickly as possible so as to alleviate the situation. I agree that it is an area where councillors themselves are involved because local councillors have responsibility for the housing of the travelling people.

Deputy Molloy is very anxious that something should be done in this area and I certainly give him my assurance that it will be done as far as I am concerned. Perhaps telling me to do something is all very well but it would be wise if he himself were to speak to some of his own councillors in his own area as well as speaking to councillors on this side of the House. I have practical experience of the problems in my own county and some of the statements made by councillors about this problem were certainly not reflected in Deputy Molloy's speech, I am glad to say, this morning. Some councillors need to be educated about their responsibilities. The problem of the travelling people is indeed a major one and the House can be assured the Government are fully committed to material progress in this whole area. I am sorry I cannot deal with other points but, as I said, I will take all the points raised into account.

Mr. Molloy

We are opposing this Vote because the financial provision made for local authorities is most inadequate.

Question put, and a Division being demanded, it was postponed in accordance with Standing Order of the Dáil No. 123, as modified by order of the House, until 8.30 p.m. on the next day on which the Dáil sits.