Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 20 Jun 2000

Vol. 521 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Economic Development and the Environment: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

noting that Ireland's rapid rate of economic development is resulting in increased pressures on the environment, and noting in particular

that the rapidly rising numbers of vehicles in our towns and cities are causing serious traffic congestion, noise pollution and air pollution;

that we have already exceeded our greenhouse gas emissions target for the 2008-2012 period;

that our natural resources are being wastefully exploited; and

that child care, accommodation and travel costs are unsustainable in large urban areas,

therefore calls on the Government to implement a concerted and comprehensive programme of public and private sector decentralisation and regional development incorporating

targeted investment in water and sanitary service infrastructure for key towns to facilitate large-scale housing and commercial property development;

the accelerated roll out of broadband high capacity telecommunications services to facilitate e-commerce business development;

the relocation of Government Departments and agencies wholly or in part to towns requiring economic regeneration; and

the extension of tax or other appropriate incentives for service industries to facilitate new jobs and relocation to selected provincial towns, in light of the high congestion and social and other costs associated with the current centralisation of such jobs in metropolitan centres.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Ring, Olivia Mitchell, Deenihan, Neville and D'Arcy. I move the motion in the name of my colleague, Deputy Dukes and my Fine Gael colleagues in the parliamentary party.

This motion is very timely and worthy of the attention of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government because it highlights the effect our rapid rate of economic development is having on our environment. The quality of the environment and its reflection on the quality of life for us all is strongly linked to economic progress and development. We are now in a period of unprecedented growth, development and economic opportunity but the signs that our environment is under pressure are evident all around us.

The recently published report by the EPA focuses on some of those pressure points. Coming on the brink of a new millennium, the report is a timely reminder of the legacy of the past effects on the environment and what the future may bring if we do not pay attention to the environment and to the damage we are inflicting on it daily.

Sustainable development is a term about which we currently hear much. A national sustainable development strategy was published in 1997 by the Government. Its aims are to ensure the economy and society can develop to their full potential within a well-protected environment, without compromising the quality of that environment and with responsibility towards present and future generations and the wider international community. It is a worthwhile and commendable objective which defines the balance required between the environment and our development. That was published in 1997. In 2000, we can quote many examples of a deteriorating environment.

The environmental impact of many of our economic, recreational and leisure activities has not been assessed and only last week in this House, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government refused to accommodate an amendment from Fine Gael and the Labour Party in the Planning and Development Bill. The amendment proposed to include the term "sustainable" in the Title of the Bill as a measure of how firmly we believe in this principle. We called a division of the Dáil on that principle because we firmly believe that the term "sustainable development" should be included in such an important Bill.

If we are not prepared to enshrine sustainable development in our legislation, we cannot possibly expect that the principle will be carried through all levels of the administration of the State. We are paying lip service to that principle and allowing development and economic success to drive ahead at a cost to the natural environment.

The 1996 census showed that our population has risen to 3.6 million with almost 60% of the population now living in urban areas. This is increasing as more and more people move from rural areas into towns and cities. We have now become a world leader in a number of aspects of economic performance. In the period 1988-98 Ireland was the fastest growing OECD economy with an average growth rate of 7%.

Economic activities use two primary factors, labour and nature. Nature and the natural environment is used in terms of raw materials, energy, water, air and its capacity to assimilate or absorb the residual or waste material. We have become over reliant on this capacity. Nature and our natural resources are starting to show the signs of pressure.

The EPA report to which I referred highlights a range of issues which arise in relation to the current state of the environment in Ireland. It singles out a number of these which merit special attention. These include the urban environment and transport, climate change, greenhouse gases, protection of our natural resources, eutrophication of our inland waterways and waste and litter. With 60% of our population living in urban areas, the quality of the urban environment is a major concern for most people living in this State. This applies to Dublin particularly with one third of the national population living there.

Increasing urbanisation is creating the need for the movement of a large number of people and goods within our cities and towns. This must be accommodated by good public transport. However, it is not happening. We do not have good and reliable public transport as we have seen today and yesterday with the disruption in our railways. The lack of properly designed road services and systems to facilitate and provide these facilities is one of the main reasons for the deterioration of the quality of our urban environment. The concentration of large numbers of people in confined areas without the necessary supporting infrastructure required creates problems such as air pollution, traffic jams and traffic noise, all attributable to the number of cars, buses etc. that are required. These problems and conditions induce stress and can impact directly on the health of our nation and on those living in urban areas.

Many parts of our cities and towns contain streets which date from a much earlier age and are unsuited to carry large numbers of vehicles. All of these problems are destined to increase with the rapid rate of urbanisation which is seen currently.

The number of new car registrations rose again in the first period of this year by 50% on last year. This figure will increase again as more new cars come onto our roads. The development of large suburbs distant from places of work is contributing to the stress felt by people. A headline in one of today's newspapers highlights this stating that Dublin's suburbs are sprawling beyond the limits of London and Los Angeles. Bad planning has allowed Dublin suburban sprawl to spread as far as 50 miles outside Dublin. For many people, this probably means a commute of an hour and a half to two hours. An extra three to four hours in their working day adds pressure in terms of transport, child care and parking. The number of cars on the roads and the emissions from the road traffic have now become the greatest threat to air quality, especially in urban areas.

The main pollutants of concern are nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, PM 10s and PM 5s, and benzene. There is very limited monitoring of these. We give them very little attention yet they can be very harmful to human health, most notably creating problems in the functioning of our respiratory systems.

We do not have enough monitoring of these emissions. The limited figures we have indicate that there are major challenges ahead to meet the limits for these emissions. Over the past 15 years, we have fallen far short of reducing the most important air pollutant emissions as required by international agreements and it seems as though we are heading that way again with the Kyoto Agreement requirements. Having failed to stabilise nitrogen oxide emissions at 1987 levels by the year 1994 as required under the Sofia Protocol, it now appears that Ireland will not achieve the national target for sulphur dioxide emissions in 2000 required by the Oslo Protocol.

Greenhouse gases, most notably carbon dioxide, from burning fossil fuels, methane, most probably from agriculture, and nitrogen dioxide have increased in the period 1990 to 1998 by approximately 19%. This has serious implications for our commitment under the Kyoto Agreement by which we are committed to reducing our greenhouse gases by 13% over 1990 levels. We signed the Kyoto Agreement when we had already overshot our target. With a current growth rate of approximately 4% annually in these gas emissions, mainly due to carbon dioxide increases based on the most recent forecast for energy and agriculture, the net emission of greenhouse gases in 2010 will have increased by 30% over the 1990 levels. That is more than twice the growth limitation target imposed by the Kyoto Agreement and agreed by Ireland.

Radical changes in policy are needed to reverse this trend and to make a substantial impact on the upward trend in these gas emissions if we are serious about sustainable development and about our international commitments. Ireland has ignored the Kyoto principles, to which it agreed. It is on target to increase emissions levels by 4% per annum and by 2010 it will have doubled the agreed levels.

Water quality continues to deteriorate. A trend of increasingly slight to moderate pollution of our river system since the 1970s has not been reversed and continues to worsen. Eutrophication is a classic example of the impact of economic development on the environment. It can be attributed to excess phosphorous from economic, domestic, industrial and agricultural activity, which has the greatest impact. Salmon and trout levels in our inland waterways have been adversely affected. The quantity of waste generated is increasing and has been the subject of many debates in the House. It is another measure of economic activity and the pressure it puts on the environment.

The intent of the motion is to challenge the Government to focus on the state of the environment and the effect that increased and rapid urbanisation is having on it and to channel resources accordingly. It also aims to encourage the Government to examine decentralisation in terms of relocating Government Departments outside Dublin into major growth centres and to develop them. It is also intended to highlight the stress people are under and the cost of living in large urban areas associated with increased expenditure on child care and transport. For example, vacancies in nursing are increasing because people cannot afford to live in the Dublin area. Many sectors offer a Dublin loading to try to attract people. However, decentralisation needs to be focused on to encourage people to live in smaller urban areas rather than large urban areas. This policy can only be followed if the Government is serious and is committed in this regard.

By 2011 the population will exceed 4 million and over the next decade 45,000 or more dwellings per year will be needed. This will necessitate an unprecedented level of house building which underlines the need for careful land use planning integrated with environmental protection. The protection of our environment is essential for this and future generations. Projected growth levels in transport, energy and forestry are highly significant and sustainable development in these sectors must be challenged and met.

The link between economic growth and environmental damage needs to be broken. I referred to the EPA report "Ireland: Environment" which demonstrates that when one examines any of the factors leading to pressure on the environment and the deteriorating effect on it it is linked to economic growth. The motion was tabled in the hope that the Government will focus on our economic growth and the pressures it creates for the environment and will reverse that trend rather than going down a long road on which it will be difficult to turn back.

The state of the environment is a big issue. The biggest issue in Dublin city and the surrounding area is that the city is over developing. I come from County Mayo and do not mind speaking about the county because the people there elected me to this House. The chief executive of the IDA, Mr. Doran, presented its annual report earlier and there was no good news for County Mayo again. The year 1999 was a record one in terms of job creation but the Government has failed. The IDA comes out with the same claptrap every year whereby it says it is trying to get people to invest in the west. When industrialists come to Ireland they do not invest in the west because in many places there are not proper water or sewerage schemes or roads and we are still in the Dark Ages. Why would they invest? For example, one would be better off crossing the fields than using the road between Longford and Charlestown. It is the worst road in the west, yet Structural Funds have been invested three or four times in roads leading to the east coast. We in the west cannot bring an ass or cart down some roads. That is why Dublin is bursting at the seams and the west is dying.

I am sick and tired of the IDA and the Government. However, the Government is about to relocate Departments outside Dublin. The Progressive Democrats do not count any more – the few members it has left will probably join Fianna Fáil and those who do not will probably join Fine Gael. There will be a straight fight at the next general election between Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party. I want the west to gets its fair share of decentralisation. We are unlucky in the west. Recently, after three years in power, a Cabinet Minister was appointed who is from Galway, a city that is doing well. I am glad he was appointed, but under this Government it was the first time since the foundation of the State that a Member from the west had not been in the Cabinet and it was the first time in a long time that Mayo was not represented at the Cabinet table. I assure the Minister that will not happen following the next general election. Three able Fine Gael Members will be returned who will sit at the Cabinet table and there will be action for the west.

The Deputy will have to defect.

Towns such as Ballinrobe, Erris, Kiltimagh, Westport and Ballina would be well able to cater for whichever Government agencies are decentralised, whether it is the Department of the Environment and the Local Government or Health and Children.

I make a plea to the Minister. The Planning and Development Bill, 1999, passed through the House last week. I want the Minister to call in all the county managers and ask them their thinking and policy on rural Ireland. As a public representative I receive most complaints from people living in rural areas who cannot get planning permission because every county manager and planner wants to shove people into towns, thus destroying the towns. They will not grant planning permission to people who have inherited land in rural areas because they have different ideas about how their counties should be developed.

I want the Minister to ask all the county managers their position on planning. Will they grant planning permission in rural areas any more? I am sick and tired of getting stick from people who experience refusal after refusal because a planner who was educated in Belfast has a different concept of planning and development from a colleague educated in Dublin. None of them has the same concept and none of them can outline what their local authorities want in terms of planning. They all have different ideas. The Minister should call them to a meeting, find out the differences and draw a fair distinction in regard to planning.

I am very reluctant to intervene but it is time to call your colleague, Deputy Deenihan.

I have not gone into water and sewerage schemes, houses and cars. I was just getting going and it is a shame.

I am afraid that I will not be able to provide you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, with the same excitement and entertainment as my colleague from Mayo.

I have heard the Minister say that he firmly believes the provision of sewage treatment to rural villages is essential if we want people to live in those areas, and I agree with him in that respect. One of the critical factors in promoting rural development is the provision of sewage treatment because most of the country is now connected to water mains.

The population of my village of Finuge in north Kerry could be doubled in one year if we had sewage treatment facilities. Every day land owners are refusing to sell sites to prospective clients because they would only be permitted to undertake frontal roadside developments and no in-depth development. Consequently, they would be destroying the potential of their land for future development if they gave away their road frontage. The more money that can be included in the Estimates for his Department to enhance sewage treatment facilities, the greater the contribution the Minister will be making to rural Ireland. I will remind the Minister for Finance of that fact at every opportunity in order to strengthen the Minister, Deputy Dempsey's position in Cabinet – if he needs that – when he is seeking extra funding. Even if the Minister had to breach spending restraints within the overall financial framework of Government spending, I would be totally supportive of maximising funding in this area.

The Government has fallen behind in providing an accelerated roll-out of broadband high capacity telecommunications services to facilitate e-commerce business development. When contributing on the debate on the Electronic Commerce Bill, I stated that in the e-commerce area

It is absolutely essential that there is a rapid roll-out of the broadband network and that the investment planned in ICT infrastructure under the National Development Plan is prioritised. E-business will remove the issue of geographical locations from trade, but that will only happen when it is possible for every area in Ireland to link in to the broadband network. The Minister needs to assure us that rural Ireland will not be neglected and perhaps the Minister for Public Enterprise, Deputy O'Rourke, could look at the Swedish Government's £6 million Euro plan to ensure that no matter how remote, every part of Sweden will be connected to the broadband system.

The Electronic Commerce Bill that is going through the Dáil at the moment, is just one step on this road. As I mentioned in my contribution to that earlier debate, rather than Ireland becoming an information superhighway, we are rapidly declining into an information boreen. I am sure the Minister will understand that language. Rapid progress must be made in this sector. From all the newspaper articles I have read and the commentators I have heard, it is obvious that we have fallen behind substantially, even in the past year. The motion addresses this matter and I would like the Minister to refer to it in his reply.

The final part of the motion refers to the relocation of Government Departments and agencies, wholly or in part, to towns requiring economic regeneration. Today I accompanied a delegation from Listowel in County Kerry to meet with officials in the Department of Finance regarding decentralisation. I can see the benefits of relocating a Government office to Listowel which has one of the finest cultural and environmental perspectives in the country. The town has no traffic congestion and there are very good educational and service facilities.

It will be one of the Government's greatest achievements if it can decentralise 10,000 or so public servants to different parts of the country. It is a critical matter.

My colleague from Mayo might be surprised that as a Dublin Deputy, I am equally enthusiastic about the process of decentralisation. I regard it as a national issue which is as important for the quality of life of the citizens of Dublin as it is to the rest of the country. I fully support a coherent, planned and targeted process of decentralisation, but I want to see it happen for the right reasons. These include achieving more balanced regional development, building sustainable communities, both in rural and urban areas, ensuring that no area grows faster than its ability to sustain that growth, maintaining our natural environment and building cities and towns which offer a good quality of life to all our citizens in a setting which is economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. I regard these as valid reasons for decentralisation.

As a Dublin Deputy, I become nervous when I hear talk of decentralisation because I suspect the motives of some members of the Government may be very different, although this is perhaps not so of the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, who is present. I suspect the Government has decided to abandon Dublin and start again somewhere else. They have failed to plan for the city's growth by providing housing, transport, child care and a waste management infrastructure – all of which are required in a capital city.

The Minister and Deputies of all parties, should reflect on how they would react if – while representing towns like Waterford, Cork, Galway or, in the Minister's case, Navan – they were told that because the Government had not provided transport or housing, their sons and daughters would be shunted off to live somewhere else and that jobs and investment would be directed elsewhere. I can guess how they would react; there would be a revolution, and rightly so. There will be a revolution in Dublin if decentralisation, or the cause of balanced regional development, is used as an excuse to effectively abandon the people of Dublin and deny them the infrastructure which can give them the kind of life they deserve. After all, a third of the country's population now lives in the Dublin region.

The process of urbanisation is a world-wide phenomenon and is probably an inexorable process that we cannot fight. However, it can be channelled, managed and targeted. If the Government was serious about managing the urbanisation process it would identify where the growth areas will be and would direct both the infrastructure and resources there. Such a plan would draw people to these areas, instead of forcing them there. It would provide the kind of job choices and opportunities in housing, education, culture and entertainment that would enable such towns not only to hold their own young populations but also to provide a local focus for the surrounding towns, villages and rural hinterland. This cannot be achieved by taking bits of Government Departments and transposing them to a ministerial backyard with absolutely no criteria as to why such decisions are being made.

We have received the early report on the development of a national spatial plan, but I regret that the final report will not be prepared for another two years. By that time we will be in the third year of the current national development plan. How is it intended to marry the NDP's investment spending with the needs of the new national spatial plan? Much investment will be wasted because it will not be targeted on the areas that we assume will be identified as growth areas.

Even at this stage, would it be possible for the Minister to bring forward that portion of the national spatial plan which would identify the major growth areas, so that investment spending can be made in a sensible way and targeted on those areas where we intend to settle the main populations in future? We should not make the same mistakes we made in Dublin in the past by failing to provide facilities in advance of population expansion trends.

I welcome the debate and, in the time available to me, I intend to deal with the reference in the motion to child care. I am surprised there is no mention of child care and its cost in the amendment tabled by the Government. This is indicative of the Government's approach and attention to this issue. It has failed to publish the review of the report prepared by the Partnership 2000 expert working group on child care.

This report, which was published in January last year, was followed by the appointment of a review group which was given six months to set out its practical implications in terms of Government policy. Ten months after the deadline, the Government's silence is deafening. Its foot dragging, squabbling and inertia with regard to decision making have helped to prolong the crisis in child care and the consequent difficulties for people who wish to access it. Thousands of working parents with young children have been left high and dry. Emergency measures are needed to radically tackle the child care crisis.

We must recognise that nurturing children is the most important role in any society. It is much more important than increasing GDP. Yet, in the current debate about child care, children are discussed as if they were inconveniences that need to be parked while the captains of industry increase their business productivity. Employer organisations should not be driving the debate about child care, but that is what is happening.

Men and women who have children need to take equal responsibility for child care, but the emphasis must be on equality and responsibility. Working time should be reordered so that higher priority is given to the needs of children. The debate on child care is not taking proper account of this aspect. Ireland is an increasingly stressful place in which to raise children. Every family faces growing pressures. From the moment a child is born, its day and that of its parents is filled with a series of struggles against the increasingly chaotic living conditions that have become the daily norm, as previous speakers noted.

Children must cope as much as adults with broken footpaths and inadequate public transport services, as demonstrated this week. Children's journeys to school by car aggravate traffic congestion because their parents do not trust public transport. Children play in public parks which are fouled by dogs against whose owners the law is not enforced. Children are afraid to take bicycles onto the roads because of the lack of cycle lanes and poor road maintenance.

Where both parents of a child must work outside the home – 42% of mothers of younger children are in employment – the stress of raising a child begins within weeks of its birth when maternity or paternity leave ends. It is now almost impossible to find quality child care at an affordable price in many areas. The implementation of regulations by health boards has already resulted in the loss of at least 2,000 child care places nationally. In particular, the Fine Gael Party believes that five steps, two local and three national, should be taken to provide care for children.

First, at local level, local authorities' planning guidelines should facilitate the provision of child care in residential areas. It is wrong for planning authorities to insist that a house in a residential area cannot be used as a small crèche to mind children who live in the immediate locality. The interests of children are best served by being cared for in their immediate neighbourhood. Second, at local level, primary schools should be made available for the franchised provision of child care during after school hours in unused rooms. New high density city housing schemes need to be designed with children and child care in mind. This aspect has been ignored in too many recently built apartment complexes. There is great potential for the better use of existing infrastructure in providing after school care.

Third, at national level, child benefit for children under the age of five years must be increased to £25 a week. This is a huge commitment but our children deserve it. In addition, it is fair to all children. It guarantees that all children are treated equally, regardless of whether they are in paid child care or being looked after in the home by a parent, grandparent or other relative. Paid child care should not be privileged over unpaid child care or vice versa. The family should have the resources to make a free choice. The Fine Gael Party's child benefit proposal does not distort the choice of parents. It recognises that all families are different. It focuses first on the needs of children and only then on the economic needs of adults. I will outline the rest of this policy at a later date.

This motion is most important and I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Environmental damage is an important issue at present. The motion is wide ranging and deals with different aspects of the damage caused by environmental pollution. The biggest polluters are local authorities, which are under the control of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and the Government. However, little is being done to rectify this situation, although it has been brought to the notice of the Minister and the Government on numerous occasions.

I wish to deal with the issue of car parks. There must be a stated interest in giving a boost to revitalising smaller towns and a stemming of the tendency of people to move to outskirts and surrounding countryside is desirable. However, this may bring its own problems. Recent upward trends in car sales have brought an increasing number of cars onto the roads. Sales so far this year are already 40% higher than in the same period last year. In towns such as Gorey, which is a busy market town, increased traffic has led to parking problems for locals and visitors.

Much of the new traffic on our roads uses the national road network and Gorey is divided down the middle by the main Dublin to Rosslare road. Despite an effective new traffic control and parking system in the town, problems remain. The emphasis in the town renewal scheme will be on protecting and restoring our built heritage. This will include the refurbishment of existing buildings to include living accommodation and shops. The purpose of the scheme is to reintroduce population to these areas and this obviously will bring further traffic problems.

In Gorey the main thrust of the scheme will be on regenerating the town's centre area, which is already congested. In this context, it is vital that the economic and commercial life of the town is not strangled. This will only be prevented if adequate car parking facilities are provided. I ask the Minister to make provision in the categories for initiatives involving tax relief for areas that can be designated for car parking, including multi-storey parking facilities. A proper car parking system will also contribute to the other aims of the town renewal scheme, increase the sustainability of places in which to live and work and stem the loss of shopping and other facilities to larger towns where parking is available.

The motion refers to the extension of tax or other appropriate incentives for service industries to facilitate new jobs and relocation to selected provincial towns. This is a most important aspect and I ask the Minister to take note of it. The congestion in towns is unbelievable. We have repeatedly raised the issue of car parking. As Members are aware, space is at a premium. In terms of economics, no individual can afford to build a multi-storey car park because the cost per unit is approximately £7,000. This will have to be subsidised by the Government. There is no space for car parks in towns such as Gorey, Enniscorthy, New Ross and Wexford. This is also a problem in towns in every other constituency.

Flat car parks are extremely expensive and, therefore, the cost of providing multi-storey car parks must be subsidised. I appeal to the Minister to take this aspect into consideration. Tax incentives are not adequate. He may think they are adequate, but that is not the case. More subsidies are needed to remove bottlenecks and to restore the situation where car parking is available in small towns.

I do not understand the Government's neglect of our railways. The roads are loaded with cars but the railway from Rosslare to Dublin could handle 24 carriages. This would remove 1,000 cars from the roads each morning. The train could travel from Rosslare through Wexford, Enniscorthy, Gorey, Arklow, Wicklow town, Bray and onto Dublin. The failure of the Government to upgrade the railway lines is a disgrace. If the Minister wants to reduce pollution and to take cars off the roads, he should improve the railways. Numerous people commute from my county and from Counties Carlow and Kilkenny. We should fill the rail carriages and take the cars off the roads by providing proper rail services.

I move amendment No. 1:

"To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann:" and substitute the following:

"commends the Government for its overall economic and social policy framework under which record levels of economic growth and prosperity have been sustained and, while acknowledging the infrastructural and environmental pressures to which rapid economic growth can give rise, welcomes:

the National Development Plan 2000-2006 which lays the foundation for economic and social development consistent with more balanced regional development through;

reducing the disparities between and within the Border, Midlands and Western Region, and the Southern and Eastern Region, and

developing the potential of all regions to contribute to the maximum extent to continuing prosperity;

the Government's decision to prepare a National Spatial Strategy which will:

address the future spatial structure of Ireland in the context of sustainable development,

identify broad spatial development patterns, and

set down indicative policies for the location of different types of development and develop proposals for the future of the Irish urban system and its links to rural areas which recognise their economic and social interdependence;

the key priority given by the Government to channelling, through the decentralisation process, public sector jobs into provincial areas;

the priority accorded by the Government to investment in economic and social infrastructure since it took office, including projected investment of some £20 billion over the seven years of the National Development Plan for public infrastructure, such as roads, public transport, water and waste water services, environmental protection, telecommunications, energy, housing and health;

the initiative taken by the Minister for Public Enterprise to improve international broadband capacity in and out of Ireland, firmly placing Ireland on the world stage and enabling companies locating here to be in a position to exploit the myriad of opportunities that the Information Age has to offer;

the Government's intention that the objective of balanced regional development should be informed by the overall aim of the National Sustainable Development Strategy, 1997 of ensuring that the economy and society develop to their full potential within a well protected environment, without compromising the quality of that environment and with responsibility towards present and future generations;

the dimension to the Government's Regional Development policy which facilitates the more effective development of the major urban centres already functioning as gateways, and the development of a comparable role for other centres that have the potential to achieve strong and sustainable growth, and to growth within their regions".

I wish to share my time with the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Cullen.

Carlow-Kilkenny): Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank the Opposition party for its support for the Government's policies outlined in the motion. I refer to decentralisation, balanced regional development, infrastructural investment in roads, water, telecommunications and industrial policy. The motion strongly supports action in these areas and, therefore, the Government's action in these areas. I note that, apart from the most tangential reference, it neglects to mention the important area of housing.

We can and should take pride in the record levels of economic growth and prosperity which have been achieved in recent years. Since the foundation of the State many of our citizens would have welcomed the opportunity to live in a country where employment is readily available and where emigration is a matter of choice and not necessity. It is easy to lose sight of the gains we have made, particularly over the past ten years. At the same time, I accept that economic growth brings its own difficulties and challenges which must be addressed and overcome so that economic and social progress can be maintained and built upon. The Government is fully aware of the infrastructure and environmental pressures created by recent prosperity and has taken steps to deal with them.

The extent and quality of the country's physical infrastructure is of critical importance to economic competitiveness and the potential for growth. In recent years the combination in Ireland of unparalleled economic growth and demographic changes have created intense new demands in the housing, transport, water and waste water, waste and health sectors. There is also the need to better distribute economic gains around the country through physical and information networks and highways.

The Government has demonstrated its commitment to resolving these problems by substantially increasing investment in economic and social infrastructure since it took office and prioritising, through the national development plan, investment in infrastructure during the period to 2006. Under the National Development Plan 2000-2006, planned investment includes £6.3 billion to bring the national and non-national road network up to higher standards of service, £2.2 billion to radically improve public transport services and £3.6 billion to upgrade environmental services, including water and waste water services and waste management. For the first time, the plan covers investment in housing, health and sports and recreational facilities, in addition to the traditional areas of economic and environmental capital expenditure, including £6 billion to meet the social housing needs of over 90,000 households and £2 billion to improve health infrastructure.

Overall annual investment in economic and social infrastructure will run at £3 billion, an increase of 55% over 1999 levels. Investment in roads and water services will amount to almost three times the 1994-99 levels. This investment in infrastructure will be implemented principally through the Operational Programme for Economic and Social Infrastructure and an operational programme for the Border, midlands and western region and the southern and eastern region. The investment will result in far-reaching improvements in our internal transport networks, in the supply of serviced land and housing, in water and solid waste services and in health facilities.

As regards national roads, our objective is nothing less than a transformation of the net work. Some £4.4 billion will be invested in upgrading key inter-urban routes to motorway or high quality dual carriageway standard while, at the same time, carrying out badly needed major improvements on other national primary and secondary routes. Equally, the investment of £1.6 billion in non-national roads will see the completion of the current non-national roads restoration programme. Almost £3 billion is earmarked for investment in water services to address, in particular, deficiencies in relation to waste water treatment, serviced land and the quality of rural water supplies.

The £6 billion provided in the national development plan for housing reflects the Government's commitment to tackling social and affordable housing needs. In response to increased social housing needs since the agreement of the national development plan provisions, the Government has introduced a further range of measures to increase social and affordable housing provision. The number of local authority housing starts has been increased over the plan period from 35,500 to 41,500, that is, 1,000 extra in each year from 2001 to 2006. The four year local authority housing multi-annual programme which commenced this year will, accordingly, increase from 22,000 to 25,000 starts.

Further additional measures have been taken by the Government to ensure enhanced capability in meeting social and affordable housing needs, including the improvement of the shared ownership and affordable housing schemes, improved funding for site acquisition for voluntary housing bodies, initiatives to facilitate better utilisation of the existing housing stock and the facilitation of land acquisition for social and affordable housing by local authorities.

The £2 billion to be invested in the health service will enable major improvement to be made in the infrastructure and equipping of acute hospitals. In addition, it will make substantial progress in upgrading facilities in the non-acute sector, including facilities for the intellectually and physically disabled, the elderly, the mentally ill and for children in need of care and protection. This level of investment in health infrastructure facilities represents almost a trebling of investment compared to the previous seven year period. It demonstrates unquestionably that the objective of securing an improvement in the health service has been a priority for the Government and is an important part of the Government's commitment to addressing social inclusion.

This infrastructural investment will take place in the context of a clear regional dimension to the national development plan, which has as one of its fundamental objectives the continued development of a dynamic competitive economy, but with more balanced regional growth. I cannot overstate the importance attached by the Government to the national spatial strategy. It will provide a long-term framework for economic and social development and planning that will set the agenda for the development of the country over the next 20 years and beyond. The strategy will be about far more than the selection of key towns for large scale housing and commercial property development. It must address a range of issues relating to economic competitiveness, social cohesion, sustainable development, the conservation of the natural and cultural heritage and improving the quality of life for all sections in Irish society and for all areas of the country.

The national spatial strategy will provide a framework for achieving long-term growth on a balanced regional basis by providing the opportunity for each region to achieve its development potential. There will be a major role in this for "regional gateways" such as the existing major urban areas, as engines for growth, supporting national competitiveness while spreading growth within their zones of influence.

The national development plan recognises that there will also be a role for a limited number of additional "regional gateways" whose identification is a key task for the national spatial strategy, based on criteria such as the gateway's ability and attractiveness to promote growth, its location and accessibility and its ability to diffuse growth within its associated sub-region. As part of this process, the strategy will have to address strategic infrastructure needs to facilitate the development of the designated gateways, particularly in relation to the additional centres.

The strategy will also have to pay particular attention to the future development of Dublin, both in terms of the capital's future role in a Europe-wide context and in terms of the relationship between Dublin and the rest of the country. This will have to include the issue of applying restraints on further urban expansion in the Dublin area and the form this might take.

The House will be reassured to know that, unlike Fine Gael, the Government has no wish to see all future development concentrated in major urban centres outside Dublin. For this reason, the strategy will also set out a basis for the future development of smaller urban centres through, for example, designation of development clusters with links to major urban centres and rural hinterlands. It will offer a development strategy which seeks to promote positive linkages between town and country and to promote self-sustaining rural and village communities.

There is a strong focus on people in the way this strategy is being prepared. If it is to be successful, ownership of the strategy should be shared by our citizens generally and by the people who must implement it at local, regional and national level. I have been more than a little surprised, therefore, at comments from members of the Opposition in this House recently on the arrangements which have been made for the extensive participation in the preparation of the national spatial strategy by local and regional authorities, community groups, social partners, Departments, semi-State bodies and sectoral interests, as well as individual citizens. The strategy has the potential to alter profoundly the way Ireland develops over the next 20 years. It is my view, a view apparently not shared by many in Opposition, that in an era of social partnership, as many people, groups and organisations as possible should be given every opportunity to contribute to its preparation.

I would like to deal briefly with some environmental issues in the context of the motion before the House. Overall, Ireland's environmental quality remains relatively good in comparison with that of most other European countries. However, the motion draws our attention to the fact that economic growth over recent years is placing increasing pressure on the environment. The EPA's recent millennium report on the state of Ireland's environment identifies five main challenges facing the environment. These are reducing eutrophication of inland waterways, managing waste and preventing litter, protecting the urban environment, controlling greenhouse gas emissions and protecting natural resources.

Eutrophication is identified as perhaps Ireland's most serious environmental problem. The phosphorous regulations made in 1998 will be important in helping to return the waters affected to a healthy condition. Record levels of investment in water services of £3 billion under the National Development Plan 2000-2006, development of catchment management strategies throughout the country, use of nutrient management planning, phase-out of phosphate-based domestic laundry detergents and implementation of REPS are also among the key measures the Government has taken to secure and maintain good water quality.

On waste issues, the regional waste management plans being developed within the policy framework, Changing our Ways, which I launched in 1998, will be integrated strategies, building on the recognised hierarchy of prevention, minimisation, reuse-recycling and disposal; some £650 million is earmarked for capital investment in the development of waste management infrastructure under the NDP and a programme of measures has been developed to complement local authority anti-litter action.

In the major towns and cities, the elimination of leaded petrol and the extended bans on smoky coal, as well as other measures, have made a positive contribution to the improvement of urban air quality. However, the dramatic rise in vehicle numbers and use over recent years, referred to in the motion, means that more is required to meet new EU standards for nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter. The NDP commits to substantial investment in public transport over the period 2000 to 2006.

As far as climate change is concerned, greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow at an unacceptable rate – if current trends persist, emissions will be nearly three times the Kyoto commitments by 2008 to 2012. I will shortly bring to Government for approval a draft national greenhouse gas abatement strategy to set the framework for action to meet Ireland's Kyoto target.

There is general recognition that there is room for improvement in relation to protecting the natural heritage. While substantial difficulties remain, progress has been made over recent years in terms of greater public information on and better resourcing for heritage protection.

While action has been and is being taken to protect and enhance the environment, there is no room for complacency. Ireland has achieved an economic performance of which we can all be proud. The potential downside, in terms of damage to the environment and depletion of our natural resources, can only be avoided by resolute measures to step up environmental protection and make our development more eco-efficient. The Government is committed to doing this but responses are demanded from everyone. We are all involved in different ways in the choices that make a difference to our environment.

I note that the Fine Gael motion calls for an accelerated roll-out of broadband high capacity telecommunications services to facilitate e-commerce business development. When this Government took office, the telecommunications market was very different from what it is now. For a start, it was not nearly as conducive to competition and growth as it is at present. That is due to the decisions of my colleague, the Minister for Public Enterprise, to liberalise the market in December 1998, ahead of schedule. The telecommunications market is now much more than just voice telephony, as can be seen in the explosive growth in Internet use. The numbers using the Internet have more than doubled over the past year or so, and we believe that the Internet and e-commerce offer Ireland valuable opportunities for economic development and growth. My colleague, the Minister for Public Enterprise, will deal with this in greater detail tomorrow night.

My colleague the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Cullen, will deal with the specific issue of decentralisation. It is clear from what I said that the Government is committed to the objective of balanced regional development. We will achieve this mainly through a series of infrastructural programmes that will target investment of £20 billion at all regions, particularly those regions in which development has lagged behind. Better roads, increased serviced land, ramped up private and social housing output, modern public transport, enhanced waste management infrastructure together with improved telecommunications, energy and health facilities will all play a part in securing continued economic progress. The orientation of the national development plan, allied to the national spatial strategy, will ensure that future growth will be better balanced within and between regions.

We accept that economic prosperity must be realised in tandem with and not at the expense of our quality of life. That is why we speak of econ-omic and social progress. One example of social progress is the care we take to preserve and enhance our environment so that it can be enjoyed by all our people now and into the future.

I am pleased to support the amendment to the motion moved by my colleague the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. I listened with great interest to what he said and I am sure we all would agree with what is happening and what he has been doing in his Department.

I am pleased to deal with the specific aspect of the programme of decentralisation announced by my colleague, the Minister for Finance, during the recent budget debate. The Government has a proud record in the establishment of an overall economic and social framework and has presided over record levels of economic growth and prosperity. My colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, outlined in some detail the initiatives being taken by the Government on regional development and the preparation of a national spatial strategy.

On budget day, the Minister for Finance announced a proposal to proceed with a new and extensive decentralisation programme. This announcement was an endorsement of an earlier Government commitment in the reviewed Action Programme for the Millennium to a policy of balanced regional development and set as a key priority the channeling of public sector jobs into provincial areas.

In developing a new decentralisation programme, the Government has in mind a number of objectives including the promotion of regional development, the reduction of congestion in Dublin, the establishment of a more even spread of public sector jobs around the country and the procurement of office accommodation at lower cost than in Dublin city centre. In view of the contribution decentralisation will make to regional development, it is appropriate that some time should be spent addressing that important subject.

I am glad my party has been to the forefront in the development of policies on decentralisation and can take great credit for spearheading the existing programme of decentralisation from Dublin to provincial towns and cities where it has acted as an important socio-economic stimulus. Some 4,000 public sector jobs have been relocated over the past 12 years or so. The impact of this programme cannot be underestimated, given that it involves almost 20 towns and cities throughout the country. I am far from alone in this House in having witnessed, at first hand, the benefits of decentralisation in my locality and community. As we come to the end of this round of decentralisation, it fair to say that it has been met with widespread satisfaction.

Deputies may be surprised to learn that before we embark on this new programme almost 50% of all civil servants are already located outside of Dublin. While decentralisation cannot account for all of that it has played a major part and contributed significantly to a greater geographical spread of Government services. All regions have benefited from the Government's policy on decentralisation and it is the Government's intention that the new programme will maintain that policy. It is obvious that the addition of new jobs to an area, whether through decentralisation or otherwise, gives a positive economic boost to such an area. New jobs result in increased economic growth and better use of existing, and often under-used, local infrastructure.

What is being proposed is a radical approach with the relocation of up to 10,000 jobs. Neither I nor my colleagues underestimate the extent of the challenge we have set ourselves in meeting that target. Notwithstanding the scale of that challenge, the Government is determined that the new programme will be the most ambitious and successful in the history of the State. The Government's determination has been bolstered by the quite extraordinary public reaction to the Minister's budget day announcement. My Department has received representations on behalf of or submissions from every country. These have included more than 90 cities, towns and villages anxious to accommodate a decentralised Government office. Cases have been made from areas ranging from suburban Dublin and Cork to small rural villages throughout the country. The Government's determination is such that we are not at this stage prepared to rule out any option which would ensure the programme's successful delivery.

I am sure Deputies are aware by now that my colleague, the Minister for Finance, recently initiated an intensive series of meetings with his Government colleagues with the intention that he will be in a position to bring proposals before the Government in time for decisions to be taken on a new and extensive programme of decentalisation by the end of next month.

I referred to the considerable public interest generated in the forthcoming programme and Deputies will be aware that interest has been reflected in this House and in the Seanad where the issue has been the subject of a considerable number of parliamentary questions, Adjournment debates, etc.

Much of the interest in the forthcoming programme has centred on the locations to which decentralisation will take place. I have referred to the 90 or so cities, towns and villages throughout every county that have made their respective cases for inclusion in the new programme. The Government intends to give due consideration to all the submissions received and, when making final decisions, will take into account a large number of factors, such as the development needs of the various centres under consideration, the availability of suitable sites or office premises, transport links, capacity of local infrastructure, princi pally water, sewerage and telecommunications, as outlined by the Minister for the Environment and local Government, population of the centre in relation to the numbers being relocated, proximity to third level education and the availability of housing and schools. That is to name but a few factors. There are many more, but that will give Members an understanding of some of the criteria being examined.

I am sure Deputies will appreciate that until such time as the Government has had the opportunity to consider all aspects relating to the new programme, it would not prudent of me to comment on the likelihood of any particular centre featuring in the programme. This is particularly the case given the number of centres anxious to be included. Given the level of interest this initiative has generated and the impact a new programme inevitably will have, I caution against any expectation that a large-scale relocation of public servants to provincial locations is imminent. Members of the House will appreciate that even after decisions have been taken to identify what should move and to where, it will be necessary to decide how this costly programme is to be financed and organised. It will be necessary to secure sites, observe planning procedures, design the buildings, appoint contractors and construct premises – all before staff can be transferred. As the Minister of State with responsibility for the Office of Public Works, I am acutely aware of the existing constraints in the construction industry, but Deputies can be assured my office will work closely with the industry to ensure the programme is delivered as efficiently and quickly as possible once decisions have been taken. In view of the importance of the new programme, I emphasise that I intend to take a personal interest in the programme's efficient delivery. I make this cautionary statement not to demonstrate any lack of enthusiasm on my part or that of the Government but simply to emphasise that after decisions are taken it will be some considerable time before staff arrive in their new locations.

By way of confirming the Government's commitment to the new programme, I repeat the recent assurance given by my colleague, the Minister for Finance, to the Committee on Finance and Public Service to the effect that the implementation of the programme will be given priority attention within the Department of Finance and that the programme will be pushed out vigorously. I can say from first-hand experience that very much is the case. Proper co-ordination will be ensured between the various Departments that will have a central role in the delivery of the programme, the Departments of Finance and Environment and Local Government as well as the Office of Public Works.

I acknowledge the very many worthwhile submissions I received on the subject of decentralisation and assure those who have made representations and presented submissions that they will be taken into account by the Government as part of the consultative process that has been initiated. I reiterate the Government's commitment to ensuring the successful implementation of this new and radical programme of decentralisation.

I wish to share time with some of my party colleagues who will speak tomorrow evening.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the motion proposed by Deputy Clune on behalf of the Fine Gael party. In many ways it complements the motion proposed by my party last week during Private Members' time which dealt specifically with the issue of housing. It, therefore, gives us an opportunity to critically evaluate the proposals the Government put forward last week to address the housing issue. It links housing with transport, planning, the needs of the community, the pressure on the environment as a result of development and the general quality of life enjoyed by our people.

In the course of the debate this evening , particularly in the contributions from the two Ministers who responded, I was struck by the utter lack of vision which the Government appears to have as to where this country is going. The country has prospered economically for some time. We have record levels of growth and investment and the Government has available to it record levels of revenue. That is something we all welcome. Yesterday Intel announced its intention to create another 1,000 jobs in Leixlip. It was interesting to note today that some of the media commentary on that announcement had to do with whether we are in a position to supply the skilled and educated labour which that type of industry requires given the prospect that this country may become the e-commerce hub of Europe. These are problems we could not possibly have imagined five or ten years ago. To some extent they are the problems of success. It is a success for which those of us in public life over the past decade can take a degree of credit because it did not happen by accident. However it creates new sets of problems. Those problems relate to the impact of the rapid development on the environment; the provision of housing, its availability and affordability; transport, child care and the quality of life we all experience.

The sad thing is the lack of vision on the part of the Government. In the course of this debate I did not get any sense from either the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, who has particular responsibility for the protection of the environment, the provision of housing and the major infrastructural development required to meet the development taking place, or the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, who has responsibility for the provision of the State's physical services, that the Government has a concept of where this country is going. We get a continuing mantra from Government that the—

Did the Deputy read the national development plan? The national spatial strategy 2000—

I read the national development plan. I am glad the Minister of State interjected at that point. I have read it and it is nothing more than a succession of projects. It was presented out of context, so much so that the cart is before the horse. The national development plan is a list of infrastructural projects and aspirations that the Government wishes to achieve.

They are also in rural Ireland and will be joined by the spatial strategy.

The spatial strategy comes later. That is the wrong way round. What we should have had is some concept of the Government's spatial strategy. How does the Government see this island developing over the next decade or more?

New gateways.

Gateways to where and to what?

To look after our own people in the first instance.

We have not got the spatial strategy. This is the fundamental problem.

Acting Chairman

In fairness, we cannot have this kind of conversation taking place.

I am quite happy to have it.

Acting Chairman

I am not.

I have no problem with it because it is the core issue. There was an announcement that there would be a national spatial strategy, advertisements have been placed in the newspapers and documents have been released inviting the public to participate in a public consultation process thereon. That is welcome. It will take two years for the spatial strategy to be adopted. By the time the national spatial strategy is adopted and agreed we will be almost half way into the life of the national development plan. In other words, the Government is proceeding with the projects without any concept of what it is all about. While I would not expect the Government to automatically put in place a national spatial strategy I would expect some overview as to where this island is going and what we are trying to achieve.

Let us look at what is happening in practice with the related issues of housing, planning and transport. In Dublin, for example, the largest urban conurbation, the city is growing enormously. There is a huge amount of suburban sprawl given the development of commuter towns all around the province of Leinster. The commuter belt for Dublin is an arc from Dundalk across to Athlone and down to Wexford. What is the Government's policy and what is it trying to do? We know that the city of Dublin is growing. The point was made in one of this morning's newspapers that the physical size of the greater Dublin area is as big as Los Angeles – 40 miles from end to the other. Is there a policy that says Dublin will continue to develop or a strategy that says satellite suburban towns will be developed? Will Mullingar, Naas, Kildare, Gorey, Enniscorthy, Carlow and so on become satellite towns of Dublin? Is that the view? We need a statement from Government about what is being developed. We can see that two things are happening in parallel although they do not appear to be related. One is the continued expansion of the conurbation of Dublin, the other is the development of satellite towns. Both developments are exacerbated by the difficulties people have accessing affordable housing.

Consider, for example, the 1,000 employees who will take up the new job opportunities being offered in Leixlip. Where will they live? Will they live in north Kildare or will they travel from Athlone or Mullingar? Will they be like a person I heard about recently—

What is the Deputy's point?

I am coming to that.

The Deputy opposed regionalisation.

We do not oppose regionalisation.

The Deputy opposed dividing Ireland into two regions for regional development.

I do not oppose regionalisation. I am saying that there is no Government strategy or policy on this. What is the Government policy?

The Deputy must be deaf.

A train leaves Longford at 6.30 a.m. each day and arrives in Dublin at 8 a.m. I heard about somebody who drives from Carrick-on-Shannon to get this train at Longford to commute to Dublin. Is that the way we intend to develop this country? Will we continue to require people, who cannot afford housing near Intel or wherever else their employment happens to be located, to have to—

Bring the jobs to the regions. That is what we are doing.

That is not happening.

We are doing that by providing a regional development plan and a spatial development plan.

The jobs are being provided wherever they happen to be provided. In practice, the people who work in those jobs end up buying their homes 30 or 40 miles away and are then required to travel for an hour or an hour and half by car or public transport to get to those jobs. That results in two problems. The first is the quality of life of the individual and the family concerned in terms of child care and wear and tear with regard to health, relationships and family life. There is also an economic effect in terms of the dislocation between where people work and where they live.

That is brought about by our infrastructural deficit which we are addressing by bringing industry to the regions.

The point is that this Government does not have a strategy to deal with that. The so-called strategy—

Who introduced regionalisation?

Let us talk about regionalisation.

Who got Objective One status?

Objective One is phoney.

The Deputy's party opposed it.

Objective One is phoney because the so-called BMW region was a manufactured region.

It was no such thing.

It was a manufactured region. It was a joke.

The Deputy should ask his former party leader if he thinks it is a joke.

This Government does not have a regional strategy. It created a regional structure which has no relationship to the regional requirements of this country but was based solely—

It was based on the economic needs of the region.

It is not based on economic need.

Acting Chairman

The Deputies' ministerial colleagues will contribute to the debate tomorrow night. They can be briefed to the hilt as to what must be contradicted.

I am trying to help the Deputy to define his vision. He has accused me of having none.

Acting Chairman

The Chair is here to help the Deputies. Deputy Gilmore without interruption, even if he might have enjoyed it.

The Government's regional strategy, such as it is, is not based on the real regional requirements of the country. It was manufactured to fit a European funding mould. As it evolved it was tailored and trimmed at various times to meet the domestic political requirement. County Kerry was in and out of the region at various stages. It became a joke. The reality is that we do not have real regional structures to correspond with this regional structure for funding. There are now two super regions which exist for nothing more than the paper exercise of deciding which is Objective One for European funding reasons and which is not.

The same system pertains in Germany, France, Britain and other member states.

There are real regions in Germany. We have a second layer of regions which is made up of local authorities. For almost every function of the State – health, tourism, fisheries, industrial development, training – there is a different region and none of those regions corresponds with each other. We do not have serious regionalisation in this country because real decision making has remained concentrated in central Government.

That is a different argument.

What we have, however, is a Government which continues to pay lip service to regionalisation. It creates fairytale regions to correspond with funding requirements and sets up what are virtually paper organisations to meet our requirements in the European context.

That is irresponsible.

The Deputy does not believe that.

At the same time, it allows laissez-faire development in an undirected manner. This country needs a real national spatial strategy—

That is precisely what has been outlined.

It is not outlined; it has been put on the long finger. It has been postponed for two years, long after the real decisions are made with regard to how the national development plan is constructed and how development will arise from it.

How much time have I left?

Acting Chairman

The Deputy has two and a half minutes.

I hope I will be given injury time for the interruptions from the other side of the House.

In the core areas addressed by the motion the Government has been a pathetic failure. In the case of the environment, under the Kyoto protocol and the basket of commitments agreed by the European Union as Europe's contribution to meeting the Kyoto targets, Ireland was allowed generous increases to its emission levels. The Government has failed to adhere to those targets.

The contribution of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government was extraordinary. He said that Ireland is about to overshoot the Kyoto targets by a factor of three but he still has not put before the House the reduction strategy he has been promising for three years. We also have not seen any of the proposals which were launched in the Programme for Government with regard to eco auditing Government policies and measures. There have been no proposals for the introduction of eco taxation and no serious effort has been made to present the national greenhouse gas abatement strategy which has also been promised for three years.

The Government has been seriously negligent of the domestic environment. There is chaos in relation to waste management. There are problems in virtually every county either in relation to the provision of landfill dumps or incineration. There appears to be no national waste strategy. A policy document was issued in 1988 called "Changing our Ways" which changed nothing.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn