Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to raise this matter. As Members of the House will know, most local authorities are in the process of preparing their Estimates for the year 1994. I should explain to the House that the rates support grant constitutes the method by which the Government compensates — or, I should say more properly, feebly attempts to compensate — local authorities for their loss of revenue resulting from the abolition of domestic rates in 1977 and the eventual abolition of rates on agricultural land in 1982. The rates support grant notified by the Minister's Department to local authorities in the current year was 2.3 per cent, grossly inadequate in all cases. No doubt the Minister will argue that the 2.3 per cent keeps pace with the rate of inflation. Of course, that takes no account of extra responsibilities placed on those same local authorities resulting from legislation and Government policy in recent years, even within the past year. The Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989 is laudable but the regulations drawn up in relation to it must be implemented by local authorities, necessitating additional staff and resources. There is nothing in the rates support grant which reflects that additional cost. The same applies to the additional cost devolving on local authorities under the building regulations stipulated in the provisions of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992, passed by this House within the past 12 months, another major cost with staff implications and so on. The Minister takes no account of that in his notification of the rates support grant to local authorities.
The provisions of the Abattoirs Act, 1988, are only now being implemented because they were never properly funded. This means that local authorities must fund veterinary inspectors and so on. Yet those same local authorities are being pressurised by the Department of Agriculture and Food to implement more of the provisions of that Act in the coming year while nothing in the rates support grant reflects those additional costs.
In preparing their estimates for 1994 almost all local authorities were obliged to make provision for a number of outstanding awards which will become payable under the 1994 pay agreement of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. In 1992 the pay element of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress provided for a 3 per cent increase in wages and salaries throughout the local and public services. Similarly, in 1993 the Programme for Economic and Social Progress provided for an increase of 3.5 per cent. Of course the Government, having agreed these matters, welshed to some extent and sought their postponement. While the ceiling on the 3 per cent was lifted from 1 December 1992 and the ceiling on the 3.5 per cent will be lifted in a few weeks' time, from 1 December 1993, the Minister for Finance was forced to agree last January that all arrears of salaries and wages accruing from 1992 and 1993 would be paid in 1994. Therefore, one can readily see the effects on local authorities' budgets in having to meet that increased demand in the coming year. That item alone in the case of estimates of most local authorities shows that their wages and salaries bill is increasing by between 6 per cent and 7 per cent. Similarly this increase is reflected in the pensions which must be paid by local authorities. I notice that the increased pensions in the budgets of most local authorities for 1994 are between 7 per cent and 8 per cent.
How can the Minister expect local authorities to organise their affairs while being subjected to all these increased costs — I mentioned but a few in relation to legislation passed by this House recently — not the least of which is the implementation of those legislative provisions? How can the Minister expect them to continue to run their affairs while receiving an increase in their rates support grant of only 2.3 per cent? Of course, in effect, it means the Department is saying they should send the remainder of their bills to their few remaining ratepayers. That is not acceptable because the few remaining commercial ratepayers nationwide simply cannot continue to bear that burden.
I have some interesting figures to demonstrate what I mean. For instance, in my own county of Roscommon, with which I am most familiar, if the rates support grant kept pace with the value of lost revenue from the abolition of rates on domestic dwellings and agricultural land, it should be of the order of £8,950,000 whereas, we are receiving a rates support grant of £4,733,000 only, leading to a shortfall of something like £4.5 million, on domestic rates alone. In County Mayo the shortfall is just short of £6 million; in County Sligo the shortfall is £4.45 million and in County Leitrim, with a population of approximately 25,000 the shortfall is £2.5 million; that is how bad it is.
We all tend to be critical of services provided by the various Government Departments and which are often referred to in this House but we must acknowledge that most Government services cost more every year and that there is an ever greater demand for better services. We may be critical of the Department of Education; nevertheless, the cost of its service continues to increase. I would have to agree that the quality of service improves as a result. I am sure the Department of Defence receives an increased allocation here every year and that the quality of service offered to the public——
