Vol. 669 No. 1
6 Deputy Simon Coveney asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the measures he plans to put in place to tackle high levels of radon gas exposure; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43127/08]
The Government's approach to radon is to concentrate efforts on increasing public awareness of the risks posed by radon in the home. This is similar to the approach adopted in the majority of EU member states.
The Government, largely through the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, RPII, has worked towards assessing the extent of the radon problem throughout the country, and advising people of the steps they can take to reduce any risk they may face. Householders, particularly those in known high radon areas, have been strongly encouraged by the RPII to have their homes tested for radon and to undertake remediation works where necessary. The RPII has carried out targeted information campaigns in high radon areas and in some instances where particularly high radon levels have been found it has written directly to householders. Since the completion of the National Radon Survey in 1999, the RPII has completed radon measurements in an additional 22,000 homes.
My Department will continue to work closely with the RPII, local authorities and other interested agencies to raise public awareness and to promote testing and remediation works. This multi-agency approach to dealing with radon is in line with international best practice, as recommended by the World Health Organisation's international radon project, which is co-funded by the Irish Government. Officials from my Department, local authorities and the RPII are developing clear guidance for local authorities on addressing high radon concentrations in social housing. My Department will continue to work closely with the RPII in developing policy on this issue, and will also examine the proposals in the RPII's 2008 report, Radiation Doses Received by the Irish Population, in respect of a future work programme.
Radon gas——
I ask Deputy Bannon to ask a question because I want to call a number of Deputies.
——is a cancer causing gas, the second most important cause of lung cancer in the country. It can be relatively inexpensive to control. Worryingly——
I want to call a number of Deputies and if Deputies could pose short questions, rather than make a speech, we could come to every Member. Otherwise, we will not be able to reach people.
——the Department has no specific budget to control radon emissions and I want the Minister to elaborate on that. Ireland has the sixth highest radon level——
Thank you, Deputy Bannon.
——according to the World Health Organisation.
Please, Deputy Bannon.
This is very serious and must be dealt with.
Deputy Bannon will not ignore the Chair. If everyone makes a speech, we will not get supplementary questions.
I would ask a question if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle gave me a little time.
The Deputy is making a speech rather than asking a question. It is Question Time, not a Second Stage debate on radon.
The Deputy referred to financial assistance. The radon test kits are available from the RPII at a cost of €56. A number of private firms have offered this service. The cost of radon remediation work on a house varies, depending on the severity and the remediation methods employed but, on average, it is €1,500 to €2,000. There is no provision in the budget of my Department to fund such a scheme. The Deputy asked me to ensure the local authorities got more money this morning. There are so many priority areas that I would like to fund. I would also like to be in a position to fund this but the money is not there.
The Minister is a very weak link in government.
When Labour was in government, the then Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, introduced legislation for a grant scheme for remediation measures. The Green Party was in favour of that scheme when in opposition. The RPII is in favour because it states that only 10% of people who have high levels of radon take up the remediation measures afterwards. NUI has found that this is because of the cost of installing those barriers. Will the Minister consider implementing the Labour Party scheme now that he is in government?
Deputy Tuffy is correct, her colleague Deputy Stagg did that but did not make the money available. I come across this constantly, where the Deputy talks about legislation that must be improved and then I find that the Labour Party introduced the legislation in the first place. That is the nature of politics.
Fianna Fáil abandoned it.
The Department has received an application for funding for radon testing and remediation in a local authority housing area in north Cork. This request is being examined and will be considered for funding under the 2009 allocation process. We are examining the situation regarding funding. Government policy on radon recognises the individual responsibility on the householder on what, if any, action to take regarding the risk posed by radon exposure.
The Minister could improve the standards and regulations in building. The RPII referred to this as an area that could be improved. It will not cost any money. The Minister might re-examine the building regulations because the high level of radon in houses is worrying.
That is a constructive suggestion. The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland is the organisation with the regulatory, monitoring and advisory responsibilities in these matters and it plays a leading role. It has tried to raise awareness of this issue. We fund the RPII and this year it was allocated €4.676 million.
7 Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the steps he will take to remedy the situation in which many housing developments are not being completed by developers up to the standard demanded by the local authorities which result in local authorities not taking them in charge for a considerable length of time; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42928/08]
Planning authorities have a range of powers under the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2008 which may be used to ensure the timely completion of housing estates in accordance with relevant planning permissions. These include attaching a condition to a planning permission requiring the giving of adequate security for the satisfactory completion of the proposed development and, if necessary, applying any security given for the satisfactory completion of the development in question; the taking of enforcement action for non-completion of a housing estate in accordance with the conditions of the relevant planning permission; and the power to refuse to grant planning permission where the authority forms the opinion that the applicant for such permission has substantially failed to comply with a previous planning permission. My Department issued updated policy guidance to planning authorities in February 2008 on Taking in Charge of Residential Developments — Management Arrangements. This required each planning authority to develop or update, as appropriate, its policy on taking estates in charge by the end of June 2008.
A new local government service indicator in regard to the taking in charge of estates has been introduced, which will provide benchmark data from 2009 onwards for monitoring the taking in charge process. The information to be reported will include the number of estates that were taken in charge in the year in question, the total number of dwellings in these estates and the number of estates in respect of which enforcement action was taken. Informed by this data, which will be available in mid-2009, l intend to keep the issue of taking in charge under review.
This question was raised by me previously and the Minister spoke about issuing the circular, which he did. In October this year it was reported that 300 estates were left unfinished. What improvements have come about as a result of the issuing of the circular on the taking in charge of housing estates? Will the Minister give us some information on the Government service indicator and the benchmark data to be provided from 2009?
Will developer bonds be increased substantially to more realistic levels than what they are currently? What extra penalties will the Minister impose on developers in respect of unfinished housing estates?
The information we got from the local authorities in 2006 indicates there were 2,423 housing estates for which the relevant planning permissions had expired more than two years previously that had not been taken in charge at that time. Of those, some 785 were considered to have been finished to the required standard, while 1,160 were not. The status of the remaining 478 was not determined. My Department does not have the information on the current position but such information will be available on an ongoing basis from mid-2009 when the first data on the taking in charge process relating to 2008 become available pursuant to the recently introduced local government service indicators.
Following on from Deputy Flanagan's comments, the Minister issued a number of directives to local authorities to provide reports on the taking in charge process. I have put down a number of questions to the Minister on that matter but the response is opaque. The Minister might indicate to the House how the local authorities are responding to the circular he sent to them and the local authorities who appear to be failing in that regard because they are failing in other areas such as inspection of standards. What action will the Minister be taking?
The Deputy is correct. As part of the monitoring and review arrangements set out in my Department's circular, each planning authority was advised to make available to the public their policy on taking in charge. They were to publish it on their website and continue to report on it to the elected members, which is an important aspect, on a regular basis or at least on one occasion annually. Planning authorities were not requested to report to my Department on their responses to the policy advice. Accordingly, the information requested is not available in my Department.
This is where we must strike a balance between micro-managing and allowing local authorities and the elected representatives to get on with their business. They are to report back to the elected representatives. Many of the local authorities are now Opposition controlled and that is where the accountability lies.
The Minister is well aware of the limited roles in terms of elected representatives and full-time staff of councils. The buck stops at the Minister's desk, regardless of the circulars he sends out to local authorities, because his Department is funding them. This situation is concurrent. We are aware that inspections of the private rental sector in local authorities are a farce, despite all the regulations the Minister has circulated. We are also aware that this could well be a farce. Is the Minister, by way of the statement he just made, washing his hands of any accountability on this matter because that is what I am hearing?
Can the Minister not issue a directive to local authorities to ensure that a developer finishes a particular development before moving on to a new one within one's county? He has the remit to increase the penalties when developers do not comply with planning permissions. That is an area on which I would like to see the Minister take action.
I thank the Deputy for that proposal. To reply to Deputy Lynch, we can have a centralised system. I have been criticised here for my interventions, as the Deputy is aware.
I did not criticise the Minister in respect of any interventions.
He did not compliment me either.
The Minister is out of order. We spoke in person on this matter——
Yes.
——and the Minister should not be telling tales out of school.
The Minister, without interruption.
No, I was not doing that.
That is what he is doing. He is being underhand in his response and that sets a precedent in that the two of us cannot have a conversation in a corridor of this House without him coming in here and——
Allow the Minister to respond.
He is out of order.
The Chair will determine whether the Minister is out of order. An tAire, without interruption.
With respect, I made no reference to any——
We spoke about that matter in the hallway here. The Minister is completely out of order.
I think the Deputy is out of order, and the Chair is right to point that out.
Neither the Minister nor the Deputy will determine what is in order. The Chair will do that.
I compliment you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, on pointing out what is and is not in order.
The Minister is in order in giving his final reply briefly.
I am saying to the Deputy that I have been criticised in the Oireachtas joint committee for interventions I have made in regard to planning matters in certain counties. I am criticised in the committee but then people say we need to take a stronger hand with the local authorities. I have to try to get the balance right. I have always said, in regard to those rezonings, that I only intervened as a matter of last resort. That is the way I try to operate. If anything, I am trying to give more powers to elected representatives and it is up to those elected representatives from Deputy Lynch's party, my party and Fine Gael, to come forward and hold the local authorities to account on these issues and ask management what they are doing in regard to this matter.
Go raibh maith agat. Ceist a hocht.
I was going to complete it but anyway——
The Minister did not answer my question.
We are more than two minutes over time on this question. Question No. 8 is in the name of Deputy Joe Carey.
8 Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his plans to address the capacity flaws in the Ringsend waste water treatment plant; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43119/08]
18 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the action he will take on foot of the finding of the independent report into the Ringsend waste water treatment plant that the capacity of the plant was miscalculated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42976/08]
33 Deputy Lucinda Creighton asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the action he will take on foot of the finding of the independent report into the Ringsend waste water treatment plant that the permitted boundary odour level in the operating contract is 100 bps; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42975/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 18 and 33 together.
I commissioned this independent examination of the design parameters of the Ringsend waste water treatment plant to determine whether they adequately addressed existing and projected loads. I was particularly concerned about the odour problems beyond the site boundary since the plant was first commissioned.
The report finds that the Ringsend plant has improved water quality in Dublin Bay to such an extent that Dollymount Strand qualifies for a blue flag. The plant is producing a high quality sludge and is generating a substantial proportion of its own energy requirements on site. The report concludes that higher levels of commuter, tourism and commercial activity than were anticipated when the plant was being designed would largely explain the difference between the design and actual loading on the plant. It also finds that the odour standard prescribed in the contract documents for the new plant did not reflect the requirements set out in the environmental impact statement.
Dublin City Council was the contracting authority for the construction of the plant and is responsible for managing it. The findings of the report are, therefore, matters for the city council in the first instance. I have, accordingly, referred the report to the council and I understand it is now being examined in detail. Some of the report's recommendations also relate to other local authorities within the Dublin region and the report has been also sent to those authorities for examination. The report concludes that the odour equipment being installed at the plant should eliminate the nuisance to nearby residential areas and that the treatment plant now consistently meets required effluent standards.
Planning for an expansion of the Ringsend plant to its ultimate design capacity of approximately 2.2 million population equivalent, to meet increased demand and to cater for future development, is already under way. Dublin City Council has appointed consultants and work is about to start on drawing up design proposals.
My colleague, Deputy Creighton, whom the Minister knows well, has been very vocal on this issue and we support her quest to ensure that people are held responsible for this fiasco. People in Ringsend, Irishtown and Sandymount have had to put up with the foul smells over the years. Nobody has stood up and accepted responsibility for the problem. The Minister, Dublin City and Council and the Government have passed the buck. The people want the report to be made public. Will the Minister respond to that? The people deserve to know what went wrong in this plant and they need to know corrective action will be taken. What steps will the Minister take to fix the problem to ensure people's quality of life is improved?
Do the Deputies opposite listen to my responses? I said the odour problem has been dealt with. I will add a little extra.
The Minister might have blocked sinuses.
I do not think so. Deputies must listen to my replies. I made a settlement of €35 million available and the Deputy says we are not accepting responsibility. I commissioned this independent report, which shows the equipment being installed is fit for purpose and will eliminate the smell. Deputy Ciarán Lynch's colleague knows nothing about the smell because she does not live in the area. I live in the area and I have had to deal with that. It led to a deterioration in quality of life for residents of the area. Before the last election I said I would deal with the problem and would find out exactly what went wrong. We have done exactly that in this report and we have dealt with it, unlike the Deputy's colleague who can talk all she likes.
There is an urgent challenge for the Minister to live up to the promises he made before the last general election to deliver safe water and sewage treatment plants not alone to Ringsend but to all parts of the country. There is a serious problem of pollution in our waterways. For example, there is a serious pollution threat to the Shannon and its tributaries in my area because of inadequate treatment plants. This matter needs to be dealt with.
That is very interesting and worthy of a question in its own right.
Why did the Minister sanction the payment to the ABA consortium considering it did not do the correct work? It should have ensured there was no odour in the first instance and that the quality of life of the people in Irishtown, Ringsend and Sandymount would not be affected. That was the basic standard. They and the Minister should have known the population of Dublin would increase and extra capacity would be needed at that plant. Can the Minister confirm that he will make the report public so his constituents and the people of Dublin can get the answers they long deserve on this fiasco?
The report is already available on a website. Have the Deputy and his colleagues not read it? The Deputy is asking me to make the report public, but it already is in the public domain. He should do his homework. Of course I knew the population would increase, but I was not in Government or on Dublin City Council. I was on the local authority and I made amendments because it was a reserve function. In the body of the report, although not in its conclusions, it is clearly stated that the nitrogen removal recommended unanimously by the elected representatives across all parties was ignored by the city council. That is a grave disappointment to me.
The design, build and operate contractor made a claim for additional final contract costs of €171.8 million arising from the disputed items including changes in electrical equipment standards and the higher load to the plant. Under the circumstances the €35 million I managed to negotiate down to was a very good cost saving measure and dealt with the odour problem, which was the main issue for residents of the area.
9 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the steps that are to be taken to address the findings of the most recent Environmental Protection Agency water quality report that found a deterioration of ground water quality; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43042/08]
I refer to my earlier reply and discussion on Priority Question No. 1.
The EPA water quality report for 2004-2006 found that ground water is the only aquatic system showing a trend of decline in water quality and this is a major cause of concern. Implementation of the nitrates directive is one of the key measures to address the deterioration of ground water quality. The nitrates directive was given legal effect by the European communities (good agricultural practice for the protection of waters) regulations 2006 and 2007. These regulations provide a firm basis for the reduction of both nitrate and phosphate losses from farm land.
Work is under way in my Department on the drafting of regulations to transpose the EU directive on the protection of ground water against pollution and deterioration. The directive sets out criteria and procedures for assessing ground water chemical status and establishes quality standards for ground water.
As part of the ongoing implementation of the water framework directive, a new ground water monitoring programme has been developed by my Department, the EPA and the local authorities to improve knowledge of ground water quality. All ground water bodies will be assessed and classified by the EPA. Once classification has taken place, the relevant authorities must set objectives for ground water bodies which will prevent deterioration, reverse trends of increasing pollution, and restore ground water bodies to good status where necessary. In addition, the first draft river basin management plans will be published next month and the public will be given an opportunity to comment on these plans during the first six months of next year. These plans will include programmes of measures to achieve the objectives of the directive.
Ground water is an important natural resource and I am committed to its protection and improvement. I secured a greatly increased budget of €560 million in 2009 for my Department's water services investment programme. This is the highest provision ever and is a clear statement of the Government's commitment to improve water quality.
As the Minister said, the fact the EPA found the quality of ground water had deteriorated is of major concern. One of the issues is much of our drinking water is supplied from ground water sources. For example, 75% of drinking water in Roscommon is provided from ground water and spring sources.
I refer to the issue of human health because one of the contaminants is faecal matter, which, if not treated properly, gives rise to problems such as e.coli, cryptosporidium and so on. The Minister referred to proposals coming down the line, such as the EU directive on ground water and the river basin management plans, and he said one of the problems is septic tanks. The environment committee earlier this week met representatives of manufacturers, installers and assessors of septic tanks and other water treatment facilities. They favour tighter controls, stricter standards and more oversight and regulation of people who design and install septic tanks and other treatment facilities. The Minister has standards and directives on his table that have not been implemented in regard to septic tanks. A proposal regarding grants for remediation of septic tanks is contained in the programme for Government. What will happen to those measures that are needed?
The Deputy's colleague, Deputy Ciarán Lynch, referred to the appearance of the industry representatives before the committee earlier. It sounded like an interesting submission and I will obtain a transcript to establish the points they made to the committee.
The Deputy is absolutely correct that we have a serious problem in regard to septic tanks, to which I referred earlier. I also referred to the European Commission's finding. The Water Services Act 2007 contains a number of significant provisions relating to the operation of septic tanks and it places a duty of care on the occupier or owner of a premises in regard to the maintenance of such tanks and it also requires him or her to notify the water services authority where any leak, accident or other incident occurs relating to the discharge of sewage from a septic tank where it is likely to cause a risk to human health or safety or the environment.
The main loophole concerns oversight of the people who design and install the facilities. The problem is the householder is liable but the installer or designer is not. Householders do not have a clue about these issues. The representatives want inspections to be carried out following installation and regulation of the installers in order that if the pollution take places, there is accountability all along the line.
The FSAI stated thousands of citizens are drinking poor quality or contaminated water. Will the Minister introduce a grant scheme for householders to replace septic tanks aged over 50 years? People will not respond unless they have an incentive. He should give encouragement to our citizens to do so.
I take the points made by Deputy Tuffy regarding a monitoring and inspection regime. The sustainable rural housing guidelines for planning authorities issued in April 2005 emphasised the need for adherence to best practice in regard to septic tanks to protect water quality, particularly in ground water. They were issued under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which requires planning authorities to have regard to such guidelines in the performance of their functions. The phrase "have regard to" is in dispute. I would like to copperfasten that phrase in the flooding and residential housing guidelines and replace it with "comply with", which would make the guidelines more robust in legal terms. The EPA is finalising a revised edition of its 2000 manual on wastewater treatment systems serving single houses in consultation with all the interested parties. We can make inroads with an inspection regime and the new legislation required.
As much as I would like to introduce a grant scheme across a range of areas, money is in short supply and I do not see that on the horizon for the foreseeable future.
10 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the action he will take to give true meaning to the phrase, affordable housing, with particular reference to the needs of the thousands of families unable to house themselves from their own resources and who are on long local authority waiting lists or living in rented accommodation at a cost equal to that of a high mortgage; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43082/08]
The overall objective of Government housing policy, as set out in the Delivering Homes, Sustaining Communities policy statement published in February 2007, is to enable every household to have available an affordable dwelling of good quality, suited to its needs, in a good environment and, as far as possible, at the tenure of its choice. When viewed in this context, the issue of affordability of housing is, therefore, dependent on the circumstances of each individual household. The policy statement recognises this clearly in its aim of putting in place a graduated range of supports for those households requiring assistance in meeting their housing needs.
We have made considerable progress in recent years in meeting housing needs through the broad range of social and affordable housing programmes. In 2007 alone, more than 13,000 social and affordable housing units were delivered and, overall, the needs of almost 18,300 households were met across the housing spectrum. That represents a significant increase of 24% on the level of need met in 2006 and a significant step towards assisting an average of 20,000 households per annum over the seven years of the National Development Plan, 2007-2013, the NDP.
All the indications available to us at this stage suggest 2008 will be another year of significant delivery under the main housing programmes. Looking to the future, the results of the 2008 housing needs assessment to be finalised shortly will show a significant increase in overall net housing need, against a background of a significantly more constrained fiscal environment. While this presents a challenging scenario, the €1.66 billion in funding provided for housing in the 2009 Estimates will allow us to maintain strong momentum towards meeting our commitments in the Towards 2016 social partnership agreement and our longer-term goals under the NDP. In particular, progress will be underpinned by the continued roll-out of the rental accommodation scheme and new initiatives including the sourcing of accommodation for social housing through long-term lease arrangements and the introduction of an incremental purchase scheme through which lower income households can access home ownership.
The Government has failed in the area of affordable housing. A total of 17,000 affordable homes were provided for in the programme for Government and the NDP between 2007 and 2009. In 2007, only 3,500 units were delivered while 976 houses were delivered in the first months of 2008. Is there a problem with the affordable housing scheme because houses are being offered at the same price or higher than houses on the open market? One in every five applicants is refusing to take an offer under the scheme because it is not in their interest to do so. Will the Minister of State confirm the reason the scheme is being replaced with the Government equity scheme is that it failed? We have concerns about the Government taking between 25% and 30% equity in homes, which makes the owners vulnerable. Also, there are more than 40,000 on social housing lists and it is taking between eight and ten years to house these people. Will the Minister of State confirm he has failed in regard to housing these people?
To date, 9,300 social and affordable homes have been delivered under Part V, with activity increasing in this area. While the charge has been made about these houses not being available in the future, and while I understand this to be the case, 9,300 have been delivered. For 2007, the number of affordable houses, leaving out social houses, was 3,539, which is a significant number. I understand this did not meet the target of 5,000 but we are in a position to state there will be an increase in that number in 2008. While we do not have the full figures, we believe an increase is already showing in the number of houses available. We will have those figures later in the year.
With regard to not meeting our targets, I believe we have met those targets. We said we would deliver——
I will squeeze in one brief supplementary question from Deputy Bannon.
Will the Minister of State explain why the most vulnerable have been hit with the reduction of funding to local authorities for affordable housing?
I did not hear the question.
I ask for a second time whether the Minister of State can explain why the most vulnerable in society have been hit with the reduction of funding to local authorities for affordable housing. If one talks to any local authority throughout the country, that is the message coming forward.
The figure available on the social housing programme for 2009 is €1.5 billion. While it is 1.7% down on 2008, it amounts to €4.2 million per day. In the circumstances in which we find ourselves, with decreased costs in construction I expect our local authorities will deliver more houses with the money available than they did in 2008.
11 Deputy Andrew Doyle asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he plans to use the stored electronic voting machines for future elections or referenda; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43142/08]
As I have stated recently in the House, I am at present considering the next steps to be taken in regard to the electronic voting and counting project. In this, I am taking into account the work of the Commission on Electronic Voting, which has examined the system, relevant experiences and developments internationally, the need to maintain public confidence in the electoral process, as well as the provisions in the programme for Government relating to electoral reform generally.
I appreciate Deputies have a keen interest in this matter and many have made their views known to me as Minister. I am also aware of the issues that have been raised in regard to storage arrangements for the machines. On this matter, the Government decision to proceed with the movement of the electronic voting equipment to centralised premises was the right approach.
Given the scale of investment in the system to date, and the importance of the issues involved for our electoral system, it is essential that the future of the project be examined objectively and in a thorough and comprehensive manner. It is important that we come to the best decision possible. I hope Deputies will appreciate that it is not possible for me to make more specific comment at this point on the project itself, or on future plans for the machines, pending completion of the necessary work and a decision by Government in the matter. I do, however, expect that this process will be concluded soon.
I am conscious that local and European elections will be held in 2009. While I do not wish to pre-empt the process that is currently ongoing, I am aware of the extensive work inherent in the recommendations of the Commission on Electronic Voting. This includes the replacement of the election management software, as well as adaptations to the equipment and further end-to-end testing. Given the amount of work that would be required, it is unlikely the current e-voting system will be used for the local and European elections in 2009.
When will the Minister take a leadership position and decide to scrap these machines? What studies has he carried out in regard to their scrappage value? It is blatantly obvious there is a lack of integrity. They are duds and people do not want them.
I do not want to blame the Minister for creating this situation. In fact, there is an opportunity for him to show leadership on the matter which he has not shown to date. Given the Minister's response, the issue is one of storage, not of usage. With 40% of the machines being stored by the private sector, what guidelines or indications did he give to the returning officers with regard to storage?
I will quote two figures on which I would like an opinion. For a 25 year contract, Cavan-Monaghan is charging €21,000 per year for 280 machines, whereas County Clare, on a monthly basis, is charging €3,600 a year for 200 machines. A 25 year contract in Cavan-Monaghan is costing eight times as much per annum as a monthly contract in another part of the country. How did we arrive at such a differential in storage costs? The Minister should give some guidelines in this regard.
The Deputies opposite say this is an opportunity to show leadership. I wonder, as I have said before to Deputy Lynch, if and when a decision is made in regard to this matter——
I will show leadership.
——the Deputy will show leadership. I am sure he will be out on the plinth. I am interested to hear what he would have to say at some time in the future if this matter is resolved.
When I am sitting in the Minister's seat.
I love to see confidence and ambition.
With regard to the Government decision to proceed with the movement of electronic voting equipment, it was the best decision to go to the centralised premises. There are 25 locations and the Deputy has outlined some of the costs involved. In taking forward the decision to centralise storage of the electronic voting machines, what we were trying to do was to look at those price variations. An inter-agency steering group was established to oversee the movement of——
I am sorry to cut short the Minister but our time is expired. That concludes questions for today.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
