The next item for consideration on the Adjournment has been raised with me in the name of Deputy Eric Byrne, the subject matter being the need for grant assistance to facilitate people living in smoke control zones.
Adjournment Debate. - Smoke Control Zones.
I want to record my appreciation that smoke control zones are being created in our city. Having said that, I want to put on the record my disappointment at the speed at which we are creating smoke control zones. I want to see if the Minister will respond to some of the following allegations.
Areas A, B and C of Ballyfermot have now been declared smoke control zones, but area D has been excluded for some odd reason, notwithstanding the fact that as long ago as 3 May 1989, seven months ago, the local authority declared the area a smoke control zone. Neilstown and areas 1 and 2 in Clondalkin were declared by the local authority, the county council in that case, as smoke control zones, yet in the Minister's statement yesterday area D in Ballyfermot and Clondalkin 1 and 2 have been excluded. In Dublin South-Central, Crumlin area A, where the local authority last month took the decision to declare a smoke control zone, has been excluded by the Minister also for grant facilities. The monitoring centre, which is on the Eastern Health Board site on the Old County Road, revealed the highest levels of pollution ever recorded in the city which make the point that, as recorded figures show, it has been one of the most polluted districts in the city, yet no grant facilities are available to people who wish to change over.
My argument here and at Dublin City Council has been consistent, that as soon as the local authority, be they Dublin Corporation or Dublin County Council, having done all the necessary preliminary work and the surveying and having satisfactorily completed all their legal obligations, declare an area a smoke control zone, on and from that date, and no other, grant applications should be entertained. Why, since 3 May, have the people in area D of Ballyfermot not been eligible for grant assistance? There is absolutely nothing in the legislation that prohibits the Minister from making grants available. Thousands of people throughout Ballyfermot, Neilstown and Crumlin would be only too happy in the morning if the grant assistance was available to enable them to do their civic duty and move away from burning bituminous coals to using alternative fuels and appliances.
Will the Minister also agree that there are incredibly long delays in the process whereby public oral hearings are held? I think this is being abused by the coal companies, particularly CDL. Under no circumstances should CDL or the coal industry, no matter who represents them, the bellmen or whatever, be allowed to have oral public hearings restating the points that have already been decided at previous oral hearings. They are engaging in a filibuster that is doing nothing for the health of this city. I would like to hear what the Minister intends doing about that. I would argue that only new issues should be allowed to be raised at oral hearings if the Minister is to go to the trouble and expense of bringing in inspectors to have those oral hearings. When the local authority decide to declare an area a smoke control zone, there is a statutory one month in which to make objections. The period taken by the Minister to establish an oral hearing is often two or three months, maybe more, and another three or four months may elapse before the inspector reports back to the Minister. The period between the inspector reporting to the Minister and his ratifying the proposal seems to be indefinite. Therefore, from the time the surveyors from the Eastern Health Board, in conjunction with Dublin Corporation, begin their survey a minimum of 12 months may elapse before there is a declaration that an area is a smoke control zone. That is a ridiculously long period. It should be short-circuited.
If the Minister is serious about tackling the smog problem in Dublin and if he is serious about complying with the EC air quality regulations, which must be complied with before April 1993, grants should be made available from the time the local authority declare the area a smoke control zone.
We should also look at the stipulation that grants can only be payable from the time the Minister ratifies the order for six months thereafter. Many people will remember what happened in the home improvements grants area where the people who were most in need of those grants did not get them. I would argue that a person may be unemployed and may not be capable of taking up the grants available. There is no reason whatever that the grant assistance can be available only for six months because people's conditions change, from employment to unemployment and vice versa. Therefore, I would ask the Minister to agree to extend the qualifying period to an indefinite period. Why should someone who is unemployed today have only a six month period in which to take up this grant option when in six months' time, or later, he may be lucky to get a job and be happy to change over from the burning of bituminous coal. The statistics are startling when you realise that today only 155 people have got grant assistance from Dublin Corporation for this purpose. The Minister speaks in terms of £1 million being available; in fact, only £106,000 has been paid out.
One of the major reasons for my being here tonight making this point is to ask what can we do to protect those who cannot afford to change over to a more costly fuel? What are we going to do about the old, the unemployed and those on social welfare? They cannot change over to a cheaper form of fuel, logs, for example, because they are a pollutant and would not be allowed in the smoke control areas. The areas which have been chosen to be smoke control zones are, in fact, areas which are predominantly working class and in which there is extreme poverty. What will the response be when people discover that old folk and those on social welfare or on low incomes are liable under this legislation and that if they continue to burn bituminous coals — the only fuel they can buy cheaply — they will be faced with a fine of £1,000 and a possible six months jail terms. In all honesty, can we use the force of this legislation to intimidate people who by their socio-economic status are incapable of changing over to another form of heating? There was a 27 per cent increase in the cost of coalite during the summer. Would the Minister agree that the switch to the use of unleaded petrol by so many motorists is because of the price differential? Would he agree that it is not sufficient to have the Director of Community Affairs and Fair Trade investigate the cost of coalite but that the solution lies in the Minister's hands, that he could effectively cut the VAT rate applying to coalite?
In summary, firstly, my arguments are in defence of the people in our society who will not be in a position to take up the grant because of their financial circumstances. Secondly, the grant scheme, instead of applying only for six months, should be extended indefinitely. Thirdly, people of limited income cannot be forced to buy coalite which is 40 per cent more expensive than the coal they have been burning to date.
I must now call the Minister of State.
The Deputy will be aware that in addition to the £1 million which is available this year, the Government are making available in 1990, £3 million extra to help meet the cost of heating adaptations which may be necessary in order to comply with the requirements of the special control area orders. That total sum is sufficient to provide generous grant assistance towards approximately 6,000 owner occupiers in heating conversions. The Deputy referred to area D, the Ballyfermot area. Today we heard in the House that there had been objections to the order. These objections have to be dealt with and, therefore, it is not possible to give a grant in those cases. It has already been made clear that we are not happy with the rate of progress in establishing and confirming special control areas in Dublin. For that reason the provisions of the 1987 Act, in relation to these areas, as being reviewed as a matter of urgency to see what can be done to speed up matters.
In regard to the smokeless product, coalite, being more expensive than coal, I am quite satisfied that it would not be appropriate simply to pay a subsidy to consumers. It is not clear why there is such a differential between the two fuels. As the Deputy will be aware the Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Trade is being asked to look urgently into the price structure. If I had more time at my disposal I could go into it in more detail with the Deputy. He will have to accept that what we are doing is a step in the right direction but it may not be as speedy as the Deputy would like. As he will see, the Government have shown their good will by increasing the financial contribution for next year from £1 million to £3 million.
Can you say why the legislation prohibits you from applying the grants system from the time the local authority declare an area a smokeless zone?
That would not be feasible because there could be objections to it by third parties and we would not know at that point whether the objections would be upheld. You will realise that we are trying to do something and to move along as quickly as we can. That is the arrangement we are putting in train and I hope much progress will be made with the co-operation of the Deputy and of all the members of the corporation. We are very anxious to make improvements in this whole area. The law, however, must be obeyed by all of us.
Will you bring the full rigours of the law to bear on those who cannot afford to buy expensive fuel?
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 15 November 1989.