Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 25 Jun 1992

Vol. 421 No. 6

Estimates 1992. - Vote 25: Environment (Revised Estimate) (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a sum not exceeding £620,144,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1992, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for the Environment, including grants to Local Authorities, grants and other expenses in connection with housing, and miscellaneous schemes, subsidies and grants including certain grants-in-aid.
——(Minister for the Environment).

Deputy Cosgrave was in possession and has nine minutes remaining.

Before we adjourned the debate I was referring to the population explosion in the Dublin area. I said that over the past 20 years Dublin had been completely built up, especially along coastal areas from Killiney to Howth Head. I also mentioned the intolerable burden this placed on the effluent disposal systems within our city, especially on water quality within Dublin Bay. For example, Dollymount beach, frequently used by Dubliners, received no award in the recent blue flag awards, proving that its water quality is of a low standard.

This surely also indicates that the water in Dublin Bay is not of the desired high standard. Dublin Bay, and adjoining areas, are a resource of immense value for recreational pursuits. It is estimated that the bay supports the recreation demands of up to 50,000 people. There is a case to be made for striving to achieve the highest water standards throughout the bay area.

Half of Dublin's effluent is emptied untreated into Dublin Bay and that is the reason for the poor water standard. I refer in particular to the north Dublin drainage scheme which serves all the north side of Dublin and caters for all housing estates, factories and hospitals. Surveys are being carried out with a view to establishing a sewage treatment plant before 1998. Consultants have been appointed and are carrying out studies on the siting of the treatment works. There are rumours about three sites. The first is Baldoyle racecourse, a high amenity area jealously guarded by its residents who want it to remain open and in green spaces. The second is reported to be a landfill site in Howth, a scenic area of high amenity and a fishing and tourist centre. The sailing club at Howth is renowned throughout the world. The area attracts many tourists and surely the proposers of this scheme cannot consider Howth as a site for this treatment works. The other site proposed is along the sea front at St. Anne's Estate, Raheny, another high amenity area enjoyed by thousands of Dubliners. The plant should not be sited there.

The solution is to update the Ringsend plant to a tertiary treatment plant and link the north Dublin drainage scheme into it like the Dún Laoghaire scheme to ensure the sewage does not enter the bay in a raw state. That would improve the water quality in Dublin Bay. I hope the Minister will consider what I said when the plan comes before him. Proper water quality in Dublin Bay will ensure that the bay's amenities for tourists are preserved. There are numerous jobs and a great deal of money in tourism. The bay has marvellous beaches which tourists appreciate.

We must look to the future. Cycle ways are developing on the north side of the city. One runs from the East Wall along the Clontarf Road. It should be continued out to Sutton and linked up with the cliff walk at Howth. If the cycle ways and walk ways are linked with the Hill of Howth the land swap about to take place there would ensure that the walkways will be in Dublin County Council's ownership. The Minister should try to understand that Howth is constantly under threat from developers and others who want to build on scenic sites. The Minister should consider instigating special amenity area orders. I accept that is a matter for Dublin County Council, but as far as I know the Liffey valley special amenity area order was instigated from the Department. The preparation of a special amenity area order requires a great deal of money and resources. The Minister should make money available to Dublin County Council for that purpose.

No debate on the Environment would be complete without mention of the housing crisis in Dublin city and county. The Minister said he intends making money available to build approximately 7,000 housing units in the whole country. Reports indicate that there are 19,400 people on the housing lists. This Estimate is not providing enough money to house people in need of housing. There are 4,377 people on the Dublin Corporation list and 682 cases in my council area of Dublin-Fingal but they have no hope of being housed considering the money being provided in the Estimate. Last year we built 23 or 24 houses in the Dublin County Council area and it is unlikely we will reduce this list in the near future. Money must be made available for local authority housing.

The shared-ownership scheme will make some contribution to relieving the housing crisis. However, that scheme will not succeed unless it has the full support of solicitors, estate agents and auctioneers, and that the conditions of the scheme do not create difficulties in transfer of titles. I hope there will be sufficient personnel in Dublin County Council and Dublin Corporation to process the documents and so maintain the confidence of auctioneers and solicitors acting for persons selling houses in this scheme. The person selling a house is probably buying another house and is anxious to close the sale so that it will not be necessary to take a bridging loan. The legal departments in Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council are very much overloaded. They need more personnel and that costs money. The Minister should consider that.

Other Deputies referred this morning to the condition of the roads. We know about potholes and the amount of money necessary to keep our roads in a proper state. A cause of concern in Dublin is Dublin Gas, the ESB and others who from time to time carry out works in estates. In an estate in Sutton where town gas has been installed, the repair work carried out leaves much to be desired. I inspected some of the work on this estate recently and it was a disgrace. Dublin Gas told me they subcontracted the work. If road repair work is not up to standard our roads which we need to protect will deteriorate.

In the Blue Lagoon high amenity area in my constituency between Clontarf and Sutton the causeway is silting because it cannot be scoured. Local residents' groups and environmentalists are very anxious that this does not silt up completely and they have been asking for many years that the causeway be bridged and properly scoured. In warm weather the odour from the silt and the algae which has accumulated there is very evident. I ask the Minister to examine this issue and to approach Dublin Corporation with a view to having the causeway bridged.

I compliment the last speaker on introducing a new acronym into the English language. We all know what NIMBY means — not in my back yard — but this is the first time I have heard the term "not in my constituency." I compliment him on the efforts he is making on behalf of his constituents. I would do no less myself.

There has been much talk about reform of local government for some time past. In fact, when one thinks back over the past 20 years it seems to have been one of those topics which have been virtually talked to death. Of course, there have been some very welcome improvements in the area of local government. For example, last year for the first time statutory recognitition was given to the general representational role of local government, the powers of local authorities were restated in broad terms and the ultra vires doctrine was removed. I believe the latter improvement was particularly welcome and was a very important step foward.

We are still awaiting the report of the Institue of Fiscal Studies on local authority finance. I have to say it is still a mystery to me why we need yet another study on the thorny issue of local government finance. Over the past 30 years there has been in excess of a dozen reports on local government financing all of which have more or less come to the same conclusions: for example five reports by the interdepartmental committee on local finance and taxation, three of which were published; the White Paper published in 1972, which was followed by a discussion document, the NESC report and the Copeland Walsh study. We all know that the only real alternatives, that is a local sales tax and a local income tax, are ultimately unworkable in our situation. I believe we will inevitably head in the direction of some form of tax related to property ownership or capital, with perhaps appropriate abatements of income and linkages to the income tax system. Of course, we all know the only way of making a real breakthrough and effecting a change in the system of local finance and taxation and, ultimately in the systeme of local government is the achievement for once of political consensus in this area. I mention this point because there was consensus over the past few weeks on the very important issue of the ratification of the Treaty on European Union. It might be no harm if in the months and years ahead, if it takes that long, we could establish some form of consensus on the way forward in the whole area of local finance and taxation.

There are two other areas of local reform which I believe have not been sufficiently addressed. In fact, they have been largely ignored. One of these is the relationship between local authotities and their clients, the citizens and the community. The second is effectivenes in the expenditure area. One does not have to dig deep into either area to find appalling examples of things being done in a way they should not be done. I should like to formally bring to the Minister's attention a case which illustrates a breakdown in the relationship between citizens and the administration at local level. Regrettably, this case occurred in my constituency and reflects just how complex public administration can become, including public administration at local level where it should not become complex. It also illustrates how bureaucracy, whether at central or local level, moves at a pace which is out of tune with the needs of citizens in the modern world.

The case involves a young couple, Karen and Seán Blackburn. They have no objection to their names being mentioned here as their plight has already been the subject of some often heated discussion at meetings of Wicklow County Council. In autumn 1990 the Blackburns applied to Wicklow County Council for a site at Monastery in Enniskerry where the council were selling four sites. In December 1990 they were told they would get a site. In January 1991 they were told they would have to build a two-storey house on the site. The council promised to prepare suitable plans, which they did. After the plans were prepared the planning application was duly lodged. In May 1991 they were granted planning permission without any difficulty. There were no objections by people from the locality and although the planning application was discussed at two area planning meetings there were no objections from councillors.

The Blackburns also heard at that time about the proposal to introduce the shared ownership scheme. They entered into immediate discussions with the county council, supported by me and other councillors. I have to say Deputy Kavanagh played a very positive role in resolving some of the difficulties. Both the Blackburns and I believe that they were not encouraged to look favourably on the scheme by the officials with whom they met. The discouragements offered to the couple were such that I raised the matter at local level at that time and separately with the Department of the Environment. These discouragements went on for some considerable time. However, the couple persevered and were finally accepted for the shared ownership scheme. They would have been the first people to build on a site in Wicklow under the scheme.

The issue dragged on until the end of 1991. The couple had found a builder, got a quotation, and the bills of quantity, etc. were agreed. It looked as if work would start sometime early in the new year. However, extraordinary difficulties then began to emerge, first among the elected members of the county council. The section 83 order to dispose of the site to this couple should have come before the council in December 1991, but it did not. It made its appearance on our agenda in January 1992. For the first time in living memory a section 83 disposal order supported by the management of the council was opposed by a number of councillors. The councillors held that an undertaking had been given as far back as 1984 by the county council officials not to build two-storey houses on the sites in question. The officials disputed this. The row dragged on for two months until March 1992 when the order was finally passed by the great majority of councillors after a number of debates, some of which could be described, in the most charitable terms, as unseemly. It is interesting to note that the councillors who objected to the sale of the site at that time had no strong objection whatsoever when the issue was before the council for planning permission.

In March 1992, almost 18 months after the start of their odyssey, the Blackburns looked forward to starting work on their house. However, this was not to be. The couple were told that the builder who had been engaged and who very decently had been biding his time in the wings for months would, under the terms of some Finance circular, be considered as a subcontractor to the county council because of the shared ownership scheme rather than as a main contractor for the building of the house. It was suggested that as a sub-contractor he would need a C2 tax certificate before work would commence. For good measure, they were also told that he would need to be a member of the house guarantee scheme. As every Member of this House knows, it takes months to get a C2 tax certificate and it takes some time to get into the house guarantee scheme. I am at a loss to understand why these people could not have been informed about this in March, April, May or June 1991 instead of having to wait until March 1992.

The Department of Finance and the Department of the Environment were approached by me and other public representatives. Both Departments disputed the need for a C2 tax certificate. A copy of the relevant Finance circular was produced after an exchange of correspondence. This made it clear that a C2 tax certificate or a tax clearance certificate would be needed by the contractor. As the contractor had an exemplary tax record and an up-to-date tax clearance certificate it seemed as if the matter could be resolved. However, this was not the case. An earlier circular was produced which seemed to come down in favour of a C2 tax certificate. More importantly the heavy guns were brought into play in the form of an opinion from a local tax inspector who indicated it was his belief that a C2 tax certificate was needed because the house was being built under the shared ownership scheme. One year and nine months into this saga the Blackburns have been approved for site purchase, planning permission and the shared ownership scheme but they have not been allowed to start work on their house. Difficulties in locating legal papers relating to the site have now begun to emerge. Having cleared a number of obstacles and hurdles, it seems we are heading into yet another brick wall.

The shared ownership scheme is a good scheme. I am on the record in this House and elsewhere as defending it as one of the most innovative moves in local government, particularly in the housing area. I never suggested that it would solve all the housing problems but it should go a good way to solving problems for young couples in particular who are marginally below the level at which they can afford to provide private sector housing accommodation for themselves and their families. This should not be a complex scheme. It should not be a scheme that would involve one in nine or 12 months of negotiations. That is maladministration at its worst and is something we should all deprecate. The shared ownership scheme would be ideal for a couple in the circumstances I have outlined or for other couples building houses. The experience in the case in question has been a nightmare. It illustrates a level of bureaucratic complexity which should not be tolerated in any modern society. The manner in which the delays have been allowed is nothing short of appalling. The pressure put on this young family is a scandal and is certainly unacceptable. The whole process of buying a site, acquiring planning permission, building a house and negotiating with a contractor is in itself a daunting task for any young couple. The long process of one difficulty emerging when another seems to be resolved, as happened in the case of the young couple I have referred to, is not acceptable. It is an example of what happens when our administration gets too complex. As I have said, the scheme is a good one. I hope the Minister will be able to give me some solace in this matter when responding.

I want to refer briefly to the issue of efficiency. For a long time I have been arguing that, with the removal of responsibility for local taxation from the shoulders of local authority members, the whole issue of efficiency at local government level has been put on the back burner. I have suggested from time to time that Ministers give consideration to the establishment of a mobile cost effectiveness unit which could be called in by local authority representatives. The local authority representatives could leave the examination of estimates to this unit in the first instance and could act on suggestions from such a unit. I hope the Minister will give some consideration to this matter. I know that Deputy Kavanagh in my own local authority area has been calling for ways of tightening up in the spending of public taxpayers' money. We should all be happy that this money is being spent efficiently.

I want to begin by deploring the way these Estimates debates are handled in this House, not by the Chair but by the reason of the Whipping system. Deputies are constrained to ten minutes on Estimates that cover typically a fairly wide range of complex issues. This does not allow the House to have any real debate on the Estimates. I note that even the Minister seemed to regret that he had such a short time to deal with a very wide-ranging Estimate. This is an insult to the House. The Whips should get together on the matter and reflect again on it. On the last occasion I spoke on an Estimate in this House I was allowed ten minutes, as were other Deputies. One can understand that I was a little browned off when I heard later that the debate had concluded at 3 p.m. that day instead of 4 p.m. The Whips should have a look at the way they organise these debates because it is unreal to debate complex issues as we are doing.

I would like to go outside my own constituency, and indeed the constituencies of Deputy Roche and Deputy Cosgrave, and look at a more global constituency. I have been looking at this Estimate side by side with the declaration adopted with great pomp and ceremony last Sunday week in Rio de Janeiro after the UN conference and I am not impressed either by the declaration or by the Estimate. I could say nothing more pertinent than what is reported to have been said by the Norwegian Prime Ministe, Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland, in her summing up of the conference: "We owe the world to be frank about what we have achieved here in Rio — progress in many fields, too little progress in most fields and no progress at all in some fields". That is a fair summing up of the Conference. We in this House should have a look at what we, as well as other countries represented in Rio, signed or what was signed on our behalf by Heads of State. I will be able to deal with only a few aspects of the matter but it might be enough to illustrate my belief that we have not begun to take the issues concerned seriously enough.

I checked to see if the Taoiseach said anything in Rio de Janeiro that would give us grounds for feeling we have a moral position to give leadership on any of the issues involved, but much to my regret he said nothing in that regard. He made a speech of passing banality which hit all the proper buttons — Fianna Fáil are good at hitting the buttons — but nothing will come of it. Nor is there any indication in this Estimate that we are taking the matter seriously. I am sceptical about the Minister's promise earlier that all these matters will be considered in the context of the review of the Environment Action Programme which will take place next autumn. I will not hold my breath waiting for that programme because I do not see the foundation in this Estimate for doing anything particularly strong in that regard.

Let us have a look at some of the declarations that were signed, underlined and endorsed in our name in Rio. I am referring to points in the agreement and the first that comes in mind reads as follows: "Environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process." Another point which seems to be related to that reads: "States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies." Another reads: "States shall enact effective environmental legislation." I wonder where there is evidence in this Estimate that we are taking these matters seriously.

On perusal of the Estimate I find that a total of £5,740,000 is being devoted to purposes which we could define as looking forward and planning for how we deal with the environment — a provision of £710,000 for the Environmental Protection Agency, provision of £1,650,000 for environmental and related services and a provision of £3,380,000. for research, analytical and related services. If I read the Estimate correctly, the latter seems to be the heading from which we will supply our local authorities with the resources and expertise needed to follow up on all the provisions solemnly passed in this House in the Environmental Protection Agency Act. I see no great rush on our part to give real life to these three points from the Rio de Janeiro declaration which I just read. To provide £710,000 for the Environmental Protection Agency in 1992, eight years before Agenda 21 is to come into effect, shows no great rush on our part to secure the objectives set out in the declaration.

Another of the points reads: "In order to protect the environment the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities." Leaving aside the question of the typical cop-out conference language "according to their capabilities", which will no doubt be a fruitful arena for argument for many years to come, I do not see in our legislation a whole-hearted, red-blooded, gut busting commitment to the precautionary approach. We had much debate about that matter in this House and I cannot say that I could hike off to Rio de Janeiro and tell the assembled Heads of State from around the world that Ireland is going bald-headed for this precautionary approach. I wonder if we and other countries are serious when we sign these declarations.

I will come back again to the declaration on unsustainable patterns of production which reads: "States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterms of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies." There were many arguments at the Conference as to what are appropriate demographic policies. I do not intend to enter into the area of philosophical and theological debate between the Vatican and the rest but I cannot honestly say that I see great evidence of appropriate demographic policies. We have not concluded on that issue, although I hear that the Minister for Health made promises again yesterday about the availability of condoms.

I am much more interested, for the purposes of this debate, in what we are doing to eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. What do I find? The Government, and many of the interest groups in our society, are objecting to the European Community proposal for a resource tax. That tax is intended to produce the funds required to begin to modify our production machines and our consumption patterns so that they will be less damaging to our environment. Our Government are hesitating about it as are all the major interest groups here. I regret that the only friend the proposal seems to have here, in any half organised way, is the Geeen Party, although they cannot be taken seriously, especially after their performance in the Maastricht treaty debate. The Conference solemnly adopted this as an objective in its declaration. It is calculated that 712 million tonnes of carbon dioxide entered the atmosphere as a result of fossil fuel burning. During that 12 days of the Conference 1.2 million new cars rolled off the world's production lines, the vast bulk of them in the already developed countries and a further 6,720 sq. kilometres of tropical rain forests were lost and, perhaps, $30 billion was spent on arms. Can we take seriously the commitment of all those Heads of State and Governments who went off solemnly to sign that declaration?

Another part of the declaration states:

States shall co-operate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the earth's ecosystem. Developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command.

However, the Conference was unable to arrive at any very solid agreement on the ODA programme. The British seem to have managed to block putting a date on the achievement of the UN objective of 0.7 per cent of GNP for ODA. Our performance in that regard has been abysmal. In this House a day or two ago the Taoiseach, who claimed in Rio that he had a plan for increasing our ODA activity, was unable to say what is involved in that plan or what he will do about it in 1993.

I must remind the Deputy of the time constraints.

The Taoiseach, having signed this declaration, is unable to tell us his plan. I do not know if we can take that seriously. There is the following statement in the declaration:

States should effectively co-operate to discourage or prevent the relocation and transfer to other States of any activities and substances that cause severe environmental degradation or are found to be harmful to human health.

The declaration continues:

National authorities should endeavour to promote the internationalisation of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution.

Having read those two statements I find both Ireland and the UK convicted of utter insincerity, when I look at the Sellafield issue which clearly indicates that neither the UK nor Ireland takes either of those statements seriously. Our stated ambition or undertaking to discourage or prevent the relocation of materials is baseless because we all know, although we would not say it, that we would not be able to reprocess spent nuclear material from this country if we did not have Sellafield. Both the UK and Ireland are indicted under the terms of the declaration they both signed.

I am glad of the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Estimate. I agree with Deputy Dukes. I too was here last Friday and suffered in the same way except that I did not get the opportunity to speak. Something should be done. I suggest that the Deputy might talk to his leader because he has not appeared here on any Friday even though we have been sitting for extra hours and on extra days. The problem does not lie all on the side of the Government.

Where is the Deputy's leader on Fridays?

Our leader is always here on Friday morning on the Order of Business.

(Interruptions.)

Can we get away from this interesting defence of leaders and back to the Estimate?

I am sorry that I was sidetracked. I congratulate the Minister for the Environment on his appointment. This is my first opportunity to meet him in the Chamber. I wish the Minister well for the next few years. He is from a rural area, which is a help, despite what Deputy Cosgrave said. He is also a former member of a local authority but, above all, he is a good listener. I hope he will be able to build on the good impression he has already created and will put his special stamp on the Department.

There should be more money in this Estimate, but there are severe financial constraints. The Minister referred to legislation such as the Housing Bill, 1992 and the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill. The Housing Bill is very important as has been mentioned by many Deputies but the points made by Deputies Roche and Cosgrave need to be clarified. If necessary, the Minister should call in all county managers to ensure that anomolies will be sorted out so that the scenario Deputy Roche spoke about and of which Deputy Kavanagh is aware will not recur.

With regard to the planning and development Bill, it is ludicrous that in the town of Ballina a project being prepared by the National Building Agency for a designated area has been objected to by the Department of the Marine. The objection may have been dropped, but it should never have surfaced. If a State body and a semi-State body cannot sort out their difficulties without a formal objection there is little hope for the country.

I am glad that extra money, amounting to almost £27.5 million, has been provided for the national roads programme. However, in east Mayo little of it has been seen over the last number of years. No major work was undertaken in east Mayo under this programme. The Swinford by-pass has been passed over and a national secondary road, the N57, which is the only artery to north Mayo and west Sligo has been ignored despite the fact that a section of that road carries the heaviest traffic in County Mayo. As this road has all the qualifications for national primary status it should be upgraded and work should be done on it particularly at Cloongullaun Bridge and in Foxford. Will the Minister re-allocate the money that was supposed to go to Foxford town to finish a job that has been in progress for two years. The money for that seemed to go to another part of the county. The Foxford-Ballina Road is in a bad condition. A number of proposals for the road between Crossmolina and Moylough has been with the Department of the Environment for four or five years. The land has been purchased and it is very important that the work goes ahead immediately as this is a very important road.

A considerable amount of money is provided in the Estimate for water and sewerage schemes. May I draw to the Minister's attention — although he may be aware of the problem being a former member of a local authority — the fact that when a large water or sewerage scheme is undertaken in an area, local people become very frustrated when very few locals are employed on the scheme. Indeed at present a major sewerage scheme is being undertaken in Swinford and I am told — indeed this has come up at local authority meetings — that only three people from the locality are employed on the scheme. In the old days it was stipulated in the contract that the contractor had to employ as many local people as possible, especially unskilled labour.

As a result of the resounding "Yes" vote in the Maastricht Treaty referendum, we can expect the Cohesion Fund to make a major impact in this country. Many areas in my county, and indeed in my constituency, have not water and sewerage services. While I understand that moneys from the Cohesion Fund cannot be used to fund new water supplies it can be used to upgrade existing water supplies which have been polluted over the years. Indeed Mayo County Council have submitted a number of proposals to the Department of the Environment for small sewerage schemes close to the River Moy. The River Moy is a very important salmon fishing river but it is being polluted.

The Minister mentioned the rate support grant. As Members may know, Mayo is the third largest county in the country but it has a small population and this places a great burden on the rate-payers. This difficulty could be addressed by an increase in the rate support grant.

I have raised the issue of peripherality with the Minister. There is very little point in complaining about our peripherality as an island nation on the edge of Europe if we ignore the peripheral regions in our own country. Thankfully the present operational programme is coming to an end as we saw very little of this fund in the west.

I hope the Minister will have the opportunity to put his own imprint on Department policy over the next few years.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, with the permission of the House I wish to give two minutes of my time to my colleague, Deputy Ryan.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Labour Party will be opposing this Estimate. The reasons are very obvious and we stated them during the recent debate on the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1992. We are particularly concerned about the number of local authority houses being built. There is no need for me to go over old ground again in the limited time available and I will give three basic reasons why we are opposing this Estimate.

The Minister states that the allocation for local authority and voluntary housing is over £78 million but studying the revised Estimates for the Public Service, one sees that the amount of money allocated by the Department for local authority housebuilding has been reduced by £1.5 million from £20,420,000 to £18,500,000. It was the Minister's decision to make this change, thus reducing the allocation at a time when the number on the housing list is growing at an enormous rate. Under the heading of housing stock owned by the local authorities the Minister has decided to reduce the allocation by £200,000. We made a case for funds so that the people in those local authorities without bathrooms, could be given assistance to install bathrooms. Two million pounds was allocated last year but the figure remains the same in this year's Estimate. Because of the rise in the cost of living, the allocation has less purchasing power; I think the figure is somewhere in the region of 3.5 per cent. The Government have decided to provide less money this year for these three vital areas. I cannot accept that and I made the arguments for increasing the allocation during the debate on the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

There is another matter which I would like the Minister to clarify but I dare say that he will not be able to do so today. The local authorities are supposed to find £32 million from their own capital receipts to make up the shortfall in the provision for local authority houses. In my local authority this is not possible. I understand the local authorities were able to raise money in 1988 by selling off local authority houses but we will never have a sale like that again. The Minister seems to think that local authority housing can be provided from capital receipts but the money is just not there.

I am very concerned at the Minister's allegation of delays in completing local authority houses and he seems to be suggesting that the drop in the number of local authority houses is due to the tardiness of the local authorities. I hope the Minister will send a letter to the chairmen of all the local authorities where this happened. We hold a housing meeting every month in Wicklow County Council and we have never had a report that the decrease in the number of local authority houses being built results from official delays. The Minister should put the finger on those local authorities who are not doing their jobs. It is only fair that he should be asked to make this known. If this can be shown to be the case in Wicklow, my colleagues, some of whom are Members of this House and one who is a member of the Seanad, would have something to say to our officials.

I am a perfectly reasonable person and I accept that the Minister is entitled to some time to familiarise himself with the intricacies of this most interesting Department. The provision for roads is most impressive. Do the figures include grants from the Regional Fund? Is this a gross figure? Are EC moneys included in departmental Estimates? I have been told in Brussels that Regional Fund moneys can be allocated for minor, non-national and non-secondary national roads if local authorities approach the Regional Fund Committee. It would be helpful for all of us whose minor and secondary roads are not directly funded by the Department if we could look for support from the EC. I was told it was possible but the Minister is allocating all the money to the Euro-route and national primary and national secondary roads. Perhaps he would tell us the exact position.

The legislation on the protection of the environment is most welcome and we must wait to see how it works. The presence of the Taoiseach, the Minister and the Minister of State at the recent conference in Rio de Janeiro has given hope that action will be taken and that the provisions of the Bill will be applied throughout the country. It is important that this country be seen as a leader in this area. We were fortunate in not having been an industrialised country and in having had a pleasant land handed to us. Perhaps more people would be working if we had been an industrialised country. Things are changing and there is need to keep a close watch on our environment. I do not go as far as the Member who sometimes sits behind me and asks that we go around in open toe sandals and do not create employment through industrialisation. We cannot provide jobs for young people if we do not attract industrial development but we must monitor that development and ensure that the planning and anti-pollution requirements are met.

I am opposing this Estimate.

I thank my colleague for affording me the opportunity to speak on an important issue which has arisen in the past few days as a consequence of a reduction in the road grant to Dublin County Council. Lack of finance for the maintenance and provision of public lighting on some 29 miles of roads within the jurisdiction of the council has resulted in about 2,000 public lights being switched off in the Dublin County Council area. Public lighting on the airport motorway, the Swords by-pass, the dual carriageway at Lissenhall near Swords, the Western Parkway, the Bray road and the Tallaght road has been disconnected. Lights on the Galway and Navan roads within the jurisdiction of County Dublin will be switched off by tomorrow. This is a direct result of a reduction in the road grant to Dublin County Council. It is a scandal which could lead to deaths on the road. I urge the Minister to meet the officials of Dublin County Council and to ensure that the necessary finance is made available to maintain public lighting and ensure that people are not put at risk.

I congratulate the Minister on the announcement last night of an allocation of almost £500,000 for the upgrading of the Swords treatment plant. I have been very much involved, with other Deputies from the area, in trying to secure this money. I compliment the Minister on his decision and hope that the promise of last night will be fulfilled in the near future.

Deputies are now entitled to put specific questions to the Minister.

I hope the Minister will reply to my question regarding grants from the Regional Fund and also my question regarding the £32 million in the Estimate to be used for local authority housing.

Regional Funds and Structural Funds are paid directly to the Department of Finance. The Department of the Environment are responsible for their own Estimate. The £32 million which the Deputy mentions comes to the local authorities on foot of the disposal or sale of local authority houses. This is done on an annuity basis. Each year they have an annuity of the order provided for in the Estimate. It will be used for the purpose intended.

Would the Minister not agree that the information I brought to his attention in respect of public lighting on the national roads in County Dublin is a most serious matter? In view of the possibility of fatalities, will the Minister give a commitment to meet the management of Dublin County Council with a view to resolving this problem?

The maintenance grant provided by my Department to the local authorities enables them to carry out their functions with regard to road maintenance and the provision of lighting. I am not directly involved. It is a matter for the local authority but since the Deputy has raised the matter I will check with them regarding the position. It is their responsibility.

Will there be urban district council, council and commission elections in June next year?

I have indicated already——

Yes or no?

——that I propose to have the work of the sub-committee completed by the end of this year and to have legislation prepared as early as possible next year. It looks likely that the elections will be held at some stage in 1993.

I would draw the Minister's attention to the very serious position in many rural areas in view of the recent EC milk hygiene regulations and the lack of water supply. I would ask the Minister to make as much money as possible available for group water schemes.

I thank Deputies Calleary, Roche, Kelly, Kavanagh, Ryan, Dukes and Cosgrave for their very thoughtful contributions. I may not agree with everything they said but they approached this Estimate in a fair-minded and open manner. I consider their contributions to be very helpful and I regret I do not have sufficient time to deal with all the issues raised. Their contributions contrasted very much with those of Deputy J. Mitchell and Deputy Allen. We had a poverty-stricken performance from Deputy J. Mitchell in which he trotted out a maze of contradictions and shed crocodile tears but at no stage did he try to address the serious problems which this House and the country have to address in terms of meeting the needs and providing the services which fall to the remit of the Department of the Environment. It was grasping for straws to see him frantically trying to gain some credit for the urban renewal scheme. He must not have been in this country in the period 1987-89 when extensions were provided and when the Government provided the economic base and created the climate which encouraged people to be involved in developments of his kind of which we are all proud and for which I, and the Government, are glad to take credit.

I regret very much that in the course of his contribution he sought to criticise the Ceann Comhairle and accuse him indirectly of collusion with the Department of the Environment. He accused officials in my Department of telling lies and accused me of making a bland statement. Then he said he did not have time to deal with the issues in a 20 minute contribution. He was able to use only 12 minutes of his time and then left this House, leaving the Fine Gael front bench empty for the duration of this debate on housing and the environment.

Deputy Allen, in his contribution, accused me of only having consideration for Dublin. I dealt with the country in the brief time available to me. I would remind him that £33.5 million has been spent on projects under the urban renewal scheme in Cork. There is still time, until May, for new applications under the scheme. We would welcome support from all sides of the House in helping to ensure that we have many practical and good schemes in every part of the country. Much excellent work has been done resulting in many people living in circumstances and in parts of the cities which we neglected in the past. We want those improvements to continue.

In regard to housing, Deputy Allen neglected to admit that I have approved, since coming to office, two major rehabilitation schemes, one in Mayfield and the other in Baker's Road; the completion of 60 houses in Douglas; the erection of 54 houses under the shared ownership housing scheme; 40 houses by Respond under the rental subsidy scheme and a further 120 units which will be provided by the voluntary housing sector. These are part and parcel of an integrated, new and dynamic housing approach by the Government. Because it is new it will need support and there will be teething problems. There is no point in going back to the sterile attitude of thinking we can solve the housing problems by major schemes on the periphery of our towns and cities without the necessary services and amenities. I have emphasised on a number of occasions that I want to see local authorities produce imaginative schemes for derelict sites, inner cities and towns. As all the attacks have been levelled at officials in my Department and myself I should like to state that a number of county councils have not been able to complete the number of houses for which they have approval.

Give us the money and we will complete them.

The simple fact of the matter is that local elected representatives consider that the only way to solve this problem is to approach the Department of the Environment without looking to their own resources. I will continue in the future to the best of my ability in Government to seek the maximum resources possible for this most deserving cause. If all the new schemes are put in place up to 7,000 households will be catered for this year. That represents considerable progress on what has been achieved up to now.

Deputy Allen said that the main building societies have 170,000 mortgages outstanding and that the number of houses repossessed last year amounted to 100. In the case of local authorities the numbers are somewhat higher but not on a par with the situation in the UK. Local authorities are in a position to make arrangements regarding the provision of alternative accommodation.

Deputy Roche raised a point in regard to shared housing in County Wicklow. I assure the Deputy I will try to make contact with the local authority to see to what extent that problem can be resolved. I appreciate that any young family trying to provide for their housing needs, in the manner in which the couple he referred to have done, should not have to wait that length of time.

Deputy Roche referred to the Arklow by-pass. The design work and environmental impact assessment on it is in the course of preparation. Deputy Kelly raised the question of the Macroom by-pass. I am glad to say that the problem with regard to that route, following negotiations between Cork County Council and Macroom Urban District Council, has been resolved.

Deputy Dukes referred to the Earth Summit at Rio. He dealt with the aspirational aspects and seemed to think that the only one aspect of our Estimate which dealt with matters of that kind referred to the Environmental Protection Agency and the provision for research. He too will realise that the work we do in terms of providing water and sewerage schemes is part and parcel of the philosophy of the Government to deal with the environment. In regard to the directives, we have concluded more than 95 per cent of the transposition of directives from the European Community on the environment into law. The environment is not all about what the Government do; it belongs to all of us; it is partly a response from industry, agriculture and the community as a whole.

Deputy Gilmore referred to the matter of waste. I appreciate the need for new strategies and new legislation which we are working on at present. We have to consider recycling, re-use and the many different ways to approach this problem. In the long run there will still be need for land-fills but I will not get involved today in debating specific cases which are the subject of an environmental impact assessment.

I regret I do not have time to respond to all the questions that have been raised. I thank Deputies who have contributed in a forthright, open and balanced manner. Due to time constraints I will reply to those queries I have not been able to answer in the House. We can look forward to the type of progress I have outlined. In the context of making change I appeal to elected representatives to support initiatives at local authority level and compare what is happening in some areas with others. They will find that excellent progress was made on a variety of schemes where a dynamic approach was adopted by the council supported by the local elected representatives.

That is the kind of partnership I want to have, not only between my colleagues on all sides of this House but also with the councils throughout the country in trying to solve the problems as best we can. The Government have never claimed to have all of the answers and we do not have all the resources we would like to have, but within the constraints that are there we seek, in a fair and balanced way, to do everything that we possibly can to solve problems and to bring together the range of options available, particularly in relation to housing, which is a fundamental area. This Government will not be found wanting in doing everything possible to address those matters now and into the future.

Vote put.
A division being demanded, it was postponed until 6.45 p.m. on Wednesday, 1 July 1992, in accordance with the decision of the Dáil of yesterday.
Barr
Roinn