I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Cullen, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Noel Ahern, and their officials. The Clerk of the committee has circulated a draft timetable for consideration. Is the timetable agreed to? Agreed.
Estimates for Public Services 2004.
Vote 25 — Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Revised).
I will make a short opening statement. The Minister of State with responsibility for housing will deal with housing issues.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss my Department's 2004 Estimate with the select committee. A briefing note has been made available to it giving details of the overall Estimate with the individual subhead expenditures. My colleagues, the Ministers of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputies Noel Ahern and Gallagher, and I will try to assist the committee in explaining progress under the various programmes. If members wish to have more specific information that is not readily available, we will also be glad to communicate this separately.
My Department's responsibilities have changed in one respect since the 2003 Estimate was discussed by the committee. In line with the Government approved report on heritage functions, my Department now carries responsibility for policy in respect of the built heritage and for both policy and operational matters relating to the natural heritage. Operational and management functions relating to the built heritage in State care have, however, been transferred to the Office of Public Works. As a consequence, some €40 million has been moved from my Department's Vote to the OPW. These changes are designed to achieve the optimum use of the organisational resources available to the Government and to build on my Department's strengths in terms of regulation and policy development, particularly in the environmental area, and the expertise and experience of the OPW in the areas of conservation and management of the State's property portfolio.
Almost €440 million is provided for investment in water services this year. The core objective of this investment is to fund ongoing work to meet the strategic environmental and economic objectives set out in the national development plan for the development of water and wastewater infrastructure. A sum of €340 million has been allocated for the programmes and sub-programmes that make up the water services investment programme. A total of €100 million has been allocated to the rural water programme, mainly to tackle water quality standards in private group water schemes which are still in need of significant improvement.
Successive EPA reports have confirmed the fundamentally good quality of our drinking water, especially where public supplies are concerned. An overall compliance rate of 97.4% with prescribed standards for all supplies based on 14 principal parameters is reported by the EPA in relation to public water schemes tested in 2002 — up slightly on the rate of 97% achieved in 2001.
Ongoing investment by my Department in the development and upgrading of water supply infrastructure is designed to maximise compliance with prescribed quality standards. The National Development Plan 2000-2006 provides for investment of some €1.4 billion in major water supply schemes, while my Department's Water Services Investment Programme 2004-2006 includes 292 public water supply schemes at various stages of development. Since 2000, we have expanded our water supply infrastructure to provide for an increase in production capacity sufficient to meet the requirements of a population of 560,000. Since 1997, additional drinking water treatment capacity equivalent to the needs of a population of almost 1 million has been produced.
The 2002 EPA report also shows an improvement in the group water scheme sector with an overall compliance rate of 91.5% reported, compared to 89.6% in 2001. While the improvement is welcome, I have repeatedly made clear that further improvement is required in this sector. Group water schemes supply about 11% of households. Water quality deficiencies in this sector are confined mainly to the much smaller block of schemes that depend on private sources without treatment or disinfection equipment. Privately sourced schemes serve some 50,000 rural households, or less than 4% of all households. Such schemes are eligible for a 100% grant for the installation of water disinfection and treatment equipment. Related civil works receive grant aid of up to 85% of cost. A subsidy of up to €197 per house is payable towards the operational cost of supplying domestic water to group scheme consumers.
Earlier this year I announced a record capital allocation of €100 million under the rural water programme for 2004. Most of the funds are ring-fenced for group water scheme improvements. The allocation represents an increase of almost 19% on the 2003 figure and is ten times greater than the 1996 figure. This clearly demonstrates our commitment to eliminating the problem of a deficiency of quality in group water supplies. I have always said unequivocally that any breach of drinking water standards is a serious matter that must be urgently addressed. In that context, I am satisfied that the measures being implemented and the strategies being pursued will resolve the remaining deficiencies in individual supplies in the shortest possible timescale.
Positive progress continues to be made onwastewater treatment. This year will see the completion of the commissioning stage of the Ringsend wastewater treatment plant, the largest project of its type constructed in the European Union to date. The scheme will serve a population equivalent of 1.6 million, produce the biggest ever improvement in the quality of Irish coastal waters and restore bathing water standards throughout Dublin Bay.
The current water services investment programme which will run between 2004 and 2006 contains 577 wastewater schemes, incorporating the remaining schemes needed for full compliance with the urban wastewater treatment directive. There was a 25% compliance rate with the directive's 2005 requirements at the start of the current national development plan but this figure had increased to 84% by the end of last year. The new wastewater schemes completed since 2000 have produced additional treatment capacity equal to the requirements of 2.8 million people, or seven times more than under the previous plan.
After housing and water services, the next largest capital programme with which my Department is involved is the non-national roads programme. Almost €50 million will be provided for such roads through my Department's Vote. The funds will be used to supplement the €428 million being provided from the local government fund. The moneys represent the highest level of funding for non-national roads in the history of the State. Local authorities will invest approximately €150 million of their resources in the non-national network bringing total investment to some €630 million.
I am satisfied that good results are being delivered by the non-national roads programme. The first pavement condition study carried out in 1996 identified that 47,000 km of the non-national road network was deficient. Approximately 32,000 km, or 68% of the network deemed deficient at the time, had been restored to good condition under the restoration programme by the end of 2003. This is real and measurable progress.
The initial 2003 Exchequer allocation for non-national roads was €40 million but the provision for 2004 is €48.8 million, representing an increase of about €8.8 million, or 22%. This funding has been allocated mainly for key strategic non-national road projects which will assist housing, commercial and industrial development. The additional funds will enable local authorities to progress work on critically important schemes on the country's regional road network. Among the schemes which will benefit in 2004 are the Naas ring road, the Enfield to Edenderry road, the Barberstown Cross to Maynooth road, the Trim to Kilcock road, the south Dublin outer ring road, the Wicklow town relief and port access road, the outer ring road in Waterford and both the Oranhill distributor road and the Parkmore road in Galway.
The amount available to local authorities through the local government fund will be over €1.2 billion in 2004. This represents a significant provision of resources for the local government sector and underlines the Government's commitment to sustaining and developing it. The resources made available through the fund are used mainly for grants to local authorities for non-national roads and to contribute to the cost of their day-to-day operations through general purpose grants. I announced over €750 million in general purpose grants to local authorities because of the extra funding available. This represents an increase of 14% on the equivalent grants for 2003.
In recent years local authorities have gone through a period of reorganisation aimed, in part, at securing a sharper focus on the needs of their customers. Elected members and community groups have been brought into the heart of strategic decision-making. Not only has there been a renewal of the democratic character of local government but local authorities have also sought to expand and improve the range of services they provide. Such services include improved water supply and treatment, empowering of local authority housing tenants, social inclusion, upgrading of crucial local roads, improved traffic management in towns and cities, improved fire and emergency service response, better building and development controls, etc. In recognition of the importance of such services, general purpose grants and grants for non-national roads from the local government fund have more than doubled since the Government first took office in 1997.
I have announced in the House that I intend to undertake a major independent review of local government funding. I recently commissioned Indecon International Economic Consultants to conduct the review, in association with the Institute of Local Government Studies. I expect that the wide-ranging review will take about one year to complete and set the context for decisions on the future funding of local authorities.
I have spoken about some of the major expenditures programmes for which my Department is responsible. Members of the committee are aware that it is closely involved with policy development across all its programmes as is abundantly clear when we examine the initiatives under Sustaining Progress that relate to its activities. The Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, will speak about the affordable housing initiative in his contribution on the wider housing programme. The waste initiative is also moving forward, as evidenced by the recent publication of a policy document, Waste Management — Taking Stock and Moving Forward. A draft national strategy on biodegradable waste has been published for consultation and will be completed by the middle of the year. We will continue to work constructively with the social partners on these issues and the remaining waste management objectives identified for delivery.
Arrangements for the implementation of the directive on the EU emissions trading scheme which will start on 1 January 2005 are well advanced. Ireland notified its national allocation plan to run between 2005 and 2007 to the European Commission by the 31 March 2004 deadline. The plan indicates the emission allowances to be given to over 100 Irish installations due to participate in the scheme. Work is also progressing with the farming pillar. A draft nitrates action programme was issued to farming organisations and other stakeholders in December 2003. The submissions received are being evaluated. I envisage that the action programme will be finalised by mid-2004 and implemented on a phased basis over a four-year period, commencing on 1 January 2005.
Much other work has been undertaken or is in progress in the Department. The new on-line motor tax system which has been available nationwide since 1 March 2004 has been widely acclaimed. The number of motor tax renewals processed through the new system so far has exceeded our expectations and the feedback from the public has been positive.
The limited time available to me for introductory statements does not allow me to expand on many other functions and services for which my Department is responsible such as the diversified range of measures in support of the natural and built heritage, urban regeneration measures, capital grants for fire and library services and grants provided through my Department for the various non-commercial semi-State bodies which operate under its aegis. I hope the question and answer session will provide opportunities to address these and other programmes for which provision is made in my Department's Estimate. I am satisfied that the Estimate before the committee will contribute to social and economic development and also protect and enhance our environment for this and future generations. I commend it to the committee. I now invite the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, to make some remarks on housing.
Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. N. Ahern)
The Government's approach to housing aims to address the wide spectrum of housing needs. Its success in increasing housing supply which is fundamental to this objective is reflected in the level of housing output achieved last year when over 68,800 new houses were completed, an increase of over 19% on the figure for 2002. It was the ninth consecutive year of record housing output. Ireland is building new houses at the rate of 17 units per 1,000 population. This is the fastest rate in Europe and compares to a figure of around three units per 1,000 in the United Kingdom. The Government remains focused on fostering the conditions for maintaining the highest possible level of housing supply. It is convinced this is the best way to moderate increases in house prices and address affordability issues.
The Government is determined to encourage a sustained and strong approach to social and affordable housing. Its commitment to providing for the housing needs of low income groups and those with special and social housing needs is reflected in the total housing provision, Exchequer and non-Exchequer, of €1,885 million in 2004. This represents an increase of 5.4% on the 2003 provision and will allow for the housing needs of around 13,000 households to be met in 2004 compared to almost 8,500 in 1998.
The Government considers it vital that local authorities take an active and strategic approach to responding to housing needs in their areas and implementing the different housing programmes funded by the Exchequer. The decision to introduce five-year multi-annual capital investment programmes provides the necessary framework and opportunity to ensure a structured basis for planning and delivering all social and affordable housing programmes. My Department has, therefore, asked the local authorities to develop new five-year action plans to ensure these multi-annual programmes for capital spending are used to their full potential to deliver the broad range of housing measures in a holistic way and that the substantial investment in housing will have the desired effect of breaking cycles of disadvantage and dependency. The plans will cover the period 2004-08. They will assist both my Department and the local authorities in identifying priority needs in the coming years and provide a coherent and co-ordinated response across all housing services, including those provided by the voluntary and co-operative sector.
The largest capital spending programme is that for local authority and social housing. The provision of almost €700 million will provide for over 5,000 starts under the programme and a further 500 under regeneration programmes. A total of almost €180 million is being provided for regeneration and remedial works in 2004. Taken together, these provisions will see about 500 additional starts in 2004 over the figure for last year.
The Government fully supports the role of the voluntary and co-operative housing sector which continues to play an increasingly significant part in the provision of social housing. Output of over 1,600 units in 2003 was the highest level ever recorded for the sector. I anticipate that the 2004 funding provision will consolidate the role of the sector with anticipated output in the order of 1,700 units.
We have continued to develop the range of responses to housing needs. The significant progress made in the delivery of affordable housing is an important part of this response. It recognises that, with a small amount of assistance, many can purchase a home of their own. Since January 2000, some 8,200 households have benefited under the affordable housing and shared ownership schemes.
We have also expanded the range of delivery mechanisms for the provision of affordable and social housing. Most significant in this context is the successful implementation of Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended. In 2003 over 160 units were acquired under Part V with momentum building all the time. There are nearly 1,900 units under construction or proposed on foot of Part V agreements. This level of activity should result in a further significant increase in output this year.
While not part of the Estimate as such, the Sustaining Progress affordable housing initiative is a critical element of the Government's approach to deal with the full spectrum of housing need. The Government's decisions in July and December 2003 to release State lands to the initiative will ensure, together with affordable housing coming on stream through Part V arrangements, that progress will be made towards achieving the target of 10,000 affordable houses proposed by the parties to the pay agreement. I regard this initiative as a priority. We will continue to work to accelerate projects to boost the supply of affordable housing in the market in the coming years.
Ensuring the best use of available resources is essential to prioritising the most urgent housing needs. This objective is reflected in Sustaining Progress which provides for a review of the effectiveness of programmes designed to assist low income groups, including those with social housing and special needs. For this reason, we have worked with the social partners through the reconfigured housing forum to develop a detailed joint work programme. We will continue to work with them to make sure our housing programmes meet the needs identified and satisfy ourselves that our social housing programmes have the maximum impact on breaking cycles of poverty and social exclusion.
Meeting increased housing demands in a balanced and efficient fashion requires not only increased private housing supply but also providing for tenure choice. The Government recognises that the private rented sector has an important role to play in meeting housing needs and is committed to continuing to develop and implement policies to help modernise and develop this sector. As part of this response, important modernisation legislation in the Residential Tenancies Bill is before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It provides for a new residential landlord and tenant framework.
I am amazed at the Minister of State's reference to the Residential Tenancies Bill.
He has a hard neck.
He must have to even mention it, given that it has been before the Dáil since July 2003 and is still in limbo. I am getting telephone calls from all over the country asking if it has been consigned to the dustbin. Therefore, it is a little hard to take to hear the Minister of State boasting about its passage through the Oireachtas.
According to the most recent statistics published by the ESRI and Permanent TSB, on 1 May the average price of a house in Dublin was over €314,000. The average price of a house nationally is €238,813, up more than €37,000 in one year. In 2003 house prices rose by 13.7% over the figure for the preceding year. That is the background to what we are dealing with in the housing market. The average cost of a new house nationally is €277,000. For a second-hand house the figure stands at €235,000. I could provide more figures but will not do so due to time constraints. In 1996, the last full year in office of the rainbow coalition Government, the cost of a house in Dublin was €88,000. The figure nationally was €75,000. When one looks at them in that context, the figures are amazing.
The Taoiseach recently spoke about the Government's record on housing. The only thing it has done about housing is to sell out the trade union movement because not one house has been built under the Sustaining Progress agreement. To my knowledge, not one foundation stone has been laid, yet the Taoiseach and his Ministers have the nerve to say the Government's record is excellent. The only response I have seen from it was the abolition of the first-time buyer's grant. It has failed to meet its commitments on social housing under the national development plan. It has increased the rate of VAT on houses and now forced local authorities to impose development levies that will increase the cost of housing substantially.
Average house prices in Dublin have risen from a figure of €88,000 in 1996 to €314,000 today. The rate of increase is astounding. In America the average house costs 25% less than on our little island. That is a frightening statistic.
According to the April 2002 census, because of the increasing price of housing, more and more people are being forced to live with their parents until they are in their mid-30s. Children in their teens and young adults in their twenties are being forced to live with their parents because they cannot afford their own accommodation. Some 42,500 people over the age of 30 years are living at home with their parents. All the Government has done is to sell out the trade union movement and renege totally on the commitments given in Sustaining Progress. It has betrayed the trade union leadership by its failure to meet them.
Last year we were promised in the Dáil that a report by Goodbody economic consultants which had been commissioned by the Department to examine the question of the hoarding of building land in the Dublin area would be presented to the Department by the end of 2003 and published soon after but I believe it has been suppressed because we have not yet seen it. Neither have we seen the promised NESC report. It may not be with the Government but I would like the Minister to clarify its status. We were told that, through the combination of the Goodbody economic consultants report, the NESC report and the long awaited report of the all-party Oireachtas committee, there would be answers to the major challenges presented but the Government's answer was the abolition of the first-time buyer's grant, the failure to meet commitments, an increased VAT rate on houses and the introduction of development levies. Houses are now 25% cheaper in the United States than in Ireland.
The disabled person's grants scheme is a shambles. I know of a person who had waited a long time for a simple appliance and was dead by the time the letter arrived. There were reviews of the scheme as well as the essential repairs grants scheme and the housing aid for the elderly grants scheme but action speaks louder than words. We were promised action but there was none. The Minister may quote the sums granted to the local authorities this year but there is huge demand. Elderly and disabled persons are anxious to remain in their own homes rather than enter nursing homes at a weekly cost of €800 but they are receiving no support. The scheme could be cost effective in keeping them out of institutions and hospitals.
I know of a young amputee, a 17 year old who has suffered from cancer, who sought a grant for the installation of a walk-in shower as she cannot use a bath and her parents could not afford to pay but she was told her case was not considered high priority. A priest who reads a newspaper column I write saw my reference to the case and offered to help. But for him offering to pay the cost, that young amputee would still be waiting, although the job is not yet finished. That is indicative of the frightening scenario on housing. The Taoiseach and his Government — the Irish Presidency — seem to be unaware of or ignoring the hidden Ireland behind the gloss and hype.
Reference has been made to waste management, in respect of which I echo some of the statements made recently. I call on the Minister to investigate the waste charges being imposed on the public by private operators who have been asked to provide a waste collection service in many local authority areas. I am concerned about the high level of charges as people are being fleeced. The Minister and the Department through the local authorities are allowing this excessive charging to occur as there are no checks and balances. God help those depending on waivers which are no longer available with the sudden elimination of a national relief scheme. The last time the Minister appeared before this committee he said people should approach their supplementary welfare officer for help. Why should the poor and elderly have to seek hand-outs in this way when the Minister and the local authorities should have a strict management role to play in dealing with these issues?
On electronic voting, where in the Estimate can we find details of the moneys spent? May we have a full statement of account? A spokesperson for the Department stated the cost of storage of non-functional machines was a matter for returning officers. I have heard of costs ranging from €60,000 per year in Waterford to €40,000 per year in Limerick. I do not have the figures for Cork. This is not a matter for the local authorities or returning officers. The Minister has a responsibility to meet the extra costs arising because of his own and his Department's cock-up. I would like to know the full details of expenditure to date, the circumstances surrounding the contracts and the full liabilities to be met by the taxpayer.
At this stage, what is the purpose of the Commission on Electronic Voting? It does not know what it is. Have ministerial regulations been made under the legislation or will they be made on the future life of the commission whose existence is meaningless in view of its confined terms of reference? In the absence of a verifiable paper audit trail, it now has a very limited role, although I acknowledge the work it has done. What is its current function? What will the Minister do to ensure it has a realistic purpose?
That is as much as I can refer to in the short time available to me but we will flesh out some of our other concerns later.
The Deputy has not done too badly.
I should have started by welcoming the Minister and the Minister of State and their officials. I thank them for the briefing document. Having said that, we have a responsibility to ask some of the hard questions to which I hope we will get straight answers.
I, too, welcome the Minister, the Minister of State, the Secretary General and departmental officials. I will start with the Minister of State on the question of housing.
After seven years we are entitled to look for results from the Government. As Deputy Allen said, on housing, the result is that the average price of a house has increased from about €80,000 or €90,000 when the Administration took over in 1997 to about three times that figure today. This means that during the seven years the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government has been in office house prices have gone up by nine times the rate of inflation, about five times the rate of increase in average earnings and more than four times the rate of increase in building costs.
The Minister of State's answer to us today is that 68,800 new houses were built last year, or 17 units per 1,000 of population compared to about three units per 1,000 of population in the United Kingdom. I do not know where that logic is intended to lead us. When I talk to people who live in the United Kingdom who had to emigrate from and now want to return to live in this State, they tell me they cannot afford to do so. If they sell their house in the United Kingdom, they will not be able to buy a house in Ireland where houses have become so expensive. I do not see the point, therefore, in the Minister of State making the comparison. Perhaps it could be explained to us.
Neither do I understand the reason we continue to hear the mantra about the number of houses being built annually. If the answer to the housing problem is to increase supply, as we were told when the Government came to power seven years ago, can someone explain why prices continue to rise given that we have increased the supply to the extent we have? A leading economist, one of RTE's favourites, recently said on television that I knew nothing about economics. That may be the case but perhaps he or some other economist who subscribes to this view can explain the reason prices increased by 13% or 14% last year when the supply of houses has increased, as I acknowledge, to a record high — in the order of 70,000.
The bottom line is that after seven years the Government has failed to moderate house prices which are now beyond the means of working families. Those who have been able to buy managed to claw on board with the help of parents who cashed in pension lump sum payments and, in some cases, by travelling great distances to work from the commuter belt. They have also been helped by low interest rates but if interest rates go up, there will be a lot of grief.
Looking at what the Government proposes to do, the Minister of State has the cheek to offer to the committee as an achievement the fact that in 2003 160 units were provided under Part V of the Planning and Development Act. When the Planning and Development Bill was published in 1999, the Minister of State's predecessor announced it as a radical new measure that would solve the housing problem. He was given a lot of air and media time. I said at the time that it would take at least two to three years to provide any of the houses promised. I was wrong; it has taken much longer. In 2003 only 160 units were produced under Part V of the Act. This means that Part V has not been working because the Government handed back sites to the builders. It caved in to a builders lobby which had asked it to reopen the loophole which had given them freedom and an exemption from Part V in respect of planning permissions and, as a consequence, lost 16,000 sites. That is the reason only 160 units were provided in 2003.
The affordable houses promised under Sustaining Progress have given a whole new meaning to the concept of a dream home because this is a dream. We are told they do not form part of the Estimate as such which means no money has been provided for them. We know from replies to parliamentary questions that not only has none of these houses been built, they have not even been started or designed. Nothing has been done to provide the 10,000 additional affordable homes promised.
Attempts to hijack homes being provided, albeit a trickle, under the Part V arrangement and suggest they are the affordable houses promised under Sustaining Progress amount to a lie. The Taoiseach recently opened a scheme of houses in Finglas which it was claimed formed part of the 10,000 to be provided under Sustaining Progress. An array of people from the social partners were brought to the gig to convince them that this was the case when, in fact, the houses were being provided through the Part V process.
I wish to pursue the issue of social housing. We are dealing with the Estimate but the figures do not match up. I am looking at the briefing document we were given in advance of this meeting for which I thank the secretariat and the Department. It states that in 2003 the provision for local authority housing was €602.15 million and that in 2004 the figure will be €614.2 million, almost a standstill position. In fact, it is probably slightly less than that when one takes inflation into account and even less again when one takes construction inflation into account.
The document tells us that it is anticipated that there will be approximately 4,000 house completions or acquisitions in 2004. According to the recently published housing statistics bulletin for 2003 there was slightly under 5,000 completions in that year. Is this a clear admission that the number of local authority houses to be provided in 2004 will be 1,000 less than in 2003? If that is the case, what answer does the Minister of State have for the 60,000 applicants on the waiting lists? One can forget about a figure of 48,000. That was the figure two years ago. There are now some 60,000 applicants for local authority housing, some of whom have been on the waiting list for over ten years. For all the guff we have heard today about the allocation of millions of euro for this, that and the other, the reality is that the number of local authority houses to be built in 2004 will be less than in 2003.
I agree with what Deputy Allen said about the disabled person's grant scheme. It is scandalous that people who suffer from a disability and apply to their local authority for a disabled person's grant are being told that not only will they have to wait for it but that their application will not even be processed for perhaps another year or two because of the extent of the backlog. The time has come for the Department to provide 100% grant aid for the scheme.
I have asked a number of times about the Residential Tenancies Bill in the House. It is incredible that a Bill which completed Committee Stage in mid-February has still not been presented by the Government for Report Stage to be taken. It seems we are running close to the wire. I do not recall the maximum number of days allowed between Committee and Report Stages but it seems we are reaching the point where the Bill will collapse. I have never been greatly convinced that there was much enthusiasm in Government for this legislation. It had to be forced into setting up the commission and took three years to present the legislation. Now that it has been presented, it will not take Report Stage.
On building land, nothing was said by either the Minister or the Minister of State about the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. What is the Minister's position on the issue? Will he implement the recommendations of the all-party committee and will legislation be presented in the House?
In regard to weight or waste——
That has a certain symmetry.
It does and the Minister is the man who captured it but I am not so sure what he managed to capture is as symmetrical as he intended because I understand his direction to the local authorities to introduce a pay by weight system from 1 January next is now being used by them as a back door way to increase charges.
It should not be.
That is what is happening in practice.
We will not know until we see——
The Minister must revisit the issue.
I agree with Deputy Allen that legislation should be introduced to regulate private waste collection services. There is a variety of problems, including different charging regimes, different standards of service, poor levels of service in some areas, particularly where is there is no competition——
They are on contract.
The problem is that when local authorities sell the lorries, they do not have an awful——
I would not be able to micro-manage the local authorities.
I expect the Minister to give leadership.
I have given them more than ever before.
The Minister has misled. That is the leadership he has provided.
The Deputy knows that is not true.
The waste problem is getting worse under the Minister's watch.
It is the same in every country. The waste mountain is going through the roof throughout Europe.
Since we are in the season of elections, can the Minister tell us whatever happened to the idea of the local warden service that his predecessor promised us prior to the 1999 local elections? The flagship policy of the Fianna Fáil local elections manifesto was that we would have a local warden service for everything, including litter, dogs, parks, beaches and the supervision of local authority by-laws, but I have not seen any of those wardens as I travel around the country. If people ask me about the promises made by Fianna Fáil in 1999, I would like to know the answer and where those wardens are that the then Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, promised us five years ago.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit, roimh an Ard-Rúnaí agus a chomhghleacaithe sa Roinn Comhshaoil, Oidhreachta agus Rialtais Áitiúil. I want to address one or two issues within the ten minutes available to me and I will try to be relatively succinct, although others may arise under the various headings.
The Minister has given us an overview, in respect of which I appreciate the documentation that we received in advance from the secretariat. Regarding what has worked, the Minister often cites the plastic bag levy as being a good measure and, to start off on a positive note, I agree. He will notice, however, that it had been raised by me in the Dáil since 1994. It is important to acknowledge that ideas from the Opposition are sometimes taken up by Governments. Perhaps we should be more open to taking up ideas.
The housing Estimate, down on the documents we received as 48.6%, accounts for an enormous proportion of the Department's spending. In that regard, it is very important that we focus not just on what has been raised by previous speakers, the affordability of housing, but also on current and future affordability of running a house. I would like to get this concept through to the Minister of State and the Minister. The cost of running a house, if one can afford to buy one in the first place, is certainly going to rise. As the Taoiseach told me, that is a fact owing to oil costs, which no one is disputing.
Compared with other OECD countries, Ireland is very far down the table in respect of energy efficiency. The figures I have put us 23rd of 24. We have much to do on energy efficiency, on which we must focus as well as on the issue of supply, on which the Minister of State concentrated exclusively. The Netherlands has such a programme. While I appreciate we are ahead of the posse, we have a great deal of catching up to do. In a three year programme the Netherlands is to have 30,000 solar panels installed on existing and new building stock. I wonder whether any thought is being given in the Department to such initiatives.
The Minister may want to interrupt me. However, it is worth hearing me out as he talks about other countries and learning from and working on best practice. The building control Bill may provide such an opportunity. With others, I have asked in the Dáil when it is to be published but the date is continually put back. Meanwhile we have a site subsidy heading. I wonder whether the recommendations of the all-party committee on affordability which DeputyGilmore mentioned will be acted upon. Since we are talking about other countries, is the German tenant and landlord framework the one being examined, or is there another idea?
A German colleague has said that in Ireland we buy our houses and rent our televisions, while in Germany they buy their televisions and rent their houses. He thinks we are crazy.
They rent their houses under certain conditions and with very strong tenant rights.
The Deputy is not comparing like with like.
Nobody rents televisions now.
We are trying to reach some kind of decent standard.
They can afford to buy the televisions but not the house.
Is this my time or a free-for-all?
I am sorry.
The Deputy could not resist. I am aware of the position in Germany. That is why I am raising it.
I was making the point that it was only Ireland that had such a desire for home ownership.
That is no wonder, since tenants get such a raw deal.
Not from the Government.
I do not want to get involved in banter about this. I am merely relaying the message that we are getting. If the Minister is getting a different one, perhaps he should visit my constituency a few more times.
With regard to water services, the focus is also on supply. This is understandable since we must address many supply issues such as leakages. However, we must also address conservation issues, as in New York where major financial decisions were taken to focus on conservation rather than building new supply infrastructure. That was the choice made and it seemed financially advisable. Fluoridation should also be mentioned but I know that issue is being dealt with at the Joint Committee on Health and Children and will not address it here. However, regardless of the other arguments involved, it would certainly save money if we did not have fluoridation which is often called mass medication.
There is no doubt that we are falling at the first hurdle regarding the waste hierarchy. Perhaps the Minister thinks that is acceptable because other countries have problems. However, that is not the issue. We are failing because our waste is growing in overall quantity year on year. This must be addressed if we are serious about the race against waste, as the Minister calls it. Is there a target for the separation of wet and dry waste, as there was for the changeover to the euro? We need a national strategy rather than an incremental, PR-focused one. The separation of wet and dry waste, as happened in Canada——
It is not PR. We have 50,000 houses using segregated systems. A few years ago——
Excuse me, a Chathaoirligh, but if the Minister is denying that there is PR involved in this——
It is not PR.
——what is the race against waste television advertising campaign?
It is a fact, as the Deputy knows.
I know exactly what it means.
It has probably been the most successful campaign run by any Department in decades.
Then the Minister should not denigrate PR.
I was not doing so but the Deputy was saying——
The Minister was.
No. The Deputy said it was only PR and had no facts.
Will I have injury time?
Yes. The Deputy can have all the injury time he likes.
I do not want to keep talking. I want to finish, if the Minister will allow me.
The issue regarding waste is not just what is taking place legally and whether that is advisable from a policy point of view but also, more importantly, what is taking place illegally. We have not got answers on this at any time since it became public. Has the Department investigated and found, through the EPA, any answers as to how Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform waste was dumped illegally north of the Border? It was one of many illegal dumps of waste from this jurisdiction in the North, which also happens a great deal in this jurisdiction. However, it is mentioned in every newspaper in the North. The Belfast Telegraph talks about uncovering large-scale evidence of rotting household and business waste being transported from the Republic for burial in makeshift landfill sites in the North. The smallest such site involving cross-Border waste contained approximately 6,000 tonnes and the largest so far 26,000 tonnes. Some of the waste from the Republic has been found a long way from the Border. Their Department is not disclosing the locations of the sites to ensure the investigation and prosecutions are not compromised. I wonder whether there is anything to be reported or what level of co-operation, North and South, is taking place on enforcement. Whatever about the peace process, it does not help matters if we are dumping on each other in every sense.
The national climate change strategy has a good deal of serious work to do. The progress to date, if one may call it that, is short of the targets. Overall, during the last century, there has been a 0.6% global increase in temperature, with poor predictions. The intergovernmental panel on climate change, IPCC, says it has been five or six times that, this century. It is not just a question of complying with Kyoto, it is about making the provisions for climate change that is to come about. A report in The Sunday Tribune referred to the need by Dublin City Council to spend €150 million on coastal protection, which is for a relatively small area. I wonder whether that is to be replicated in other parts of the country, Waterford, for example. There are costs involved for the Department but I am not sure they have even been given any thought or preliminary consideration. To a large extent they relate to coastal protection, but also other issues such as waste water and water supply, for example, the predicted shortage of water on the east coast as well as the increase in precipitation in the west. These are clear monetary issues that must be considered, whatever about the policy and the success or otherwise of its implementation.
The Heritage Council is being funded from national lottery funds. I am not sure whether that indicates that it is dependent on everyone buying lottery tickets or whether any long-term strategic view for the council is built in. From what I gather, the council feels somewhat undervalued at present. That is something the Minister has to address, certainly in terms of morale.
Apart from the cut in funding to the fire and emergency services, there is the life and death issue of ambulances competing with one another in getting to incidents. There is a need for co-ordination and perhaps the Department is the place from whence it should take place. I have heard complaints from ambulance crews who say that lives have been lost because they are effectively racing with each other in response to calls to the same incidents. That is not a good use of resources.
There is much that could be said on local government expenditure. While it will not be provide for, consideration needs to be given to the need for co-operation on funding with the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, given that the harbours legislation is due to be administered, in some cases — in my own area, Balbriggan and Skerries, for example — by local authorities. Again there is an implication here for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Are the radon grants going to come back?
They were never there in the first place.
They were remediation grants.
They were never there.
I am not able to verify that. I would like the Minister to be able to say they were never there and to verify it.
We will have a question and answer session later.
I did not expect to get answers yet. I putting a question about verification because remediation grants have been in place.
I would like to make a brief comment, as regards an issue close to my heart, the disabled person's grant, DPG, and the essential repairs grant, ERG. I was alarmed to hear Deputy Allen say an amputee failed to get a grant from Cork County Council, or Cork Corporation — I am not sure which. It is a shameful indictment of that local authority not to give a grant in such a case. In my own County Limerick, we can meet every application for a DPG on demand, approved and paid for, for one reason, namely, because the members of my council prioritise funding at Estimates time every year. The first question I asked the housing officer was whether there was enough money to meet the demand in the previous year for DPGs and ERGs. If the answer was "yes", that was fine. If it was "no", the Estimate would be revised and funding increased.
It is a shameful indictment of any council to refuse a DPG to an amputee. It is not the Minister's fault, nor the Department's. Funding has been increased substantially year by year since 1997. I do not want to let the opportunity pass without mentioning that my council and many others have successfully dealt with applications by putting in enough of their own resources. Deputy Ring appears to have a problem in Mayo, every now and then. He goes on "Five Seven Live" and makes a big deal with sad cases. We have heard the same thing about an amputee, but if it is the case, it is not the fault of the Cork local authority or its members.
That is an election issue.
No, it is just an observation. It is a factual comment.
Does Deputy McCormack want to make a comment?
I want to ask a question.
Are we finished the opening statements or are we going in now to——
The committee agreed on a set timetable and structure as to how we would do our business. It entailed the Minister and Minister of State making their opening remarks and the main spokespersons giving their comments. It was agreed that at 3.15 p.m. we would go on to deal with the different subheads, which will give members an opportunity to ask questions. If there is something, briefly, that the Deputy wants to say, he should feel free to speak.
It was not necessary for me to be here. I thought I would be able to make a contribution because I was invited to this meeting.
This was what we agreed on. Unfortunately the Deputy was not here for it.
I am not answering any questions at the moment. The opening statements have been made. I will answer the questions as we go down through the subheads. That is the arrangement that has been made.
I do not mind. It is whatever the Chairman rules.
If the Deputy has a brief comment he would like to make, he should feel free to do so.
I would certainly like to ask the Minister about small sewerage schemes, particularly in seaside villages. We are still waiting——
We will be dealing with them, just for the Deputy's benefit.
I am happy to wait for the Minister to deal with them later. Whoever is writing the Minister's scripts has a habit of comparing 1996 to the present date. Deputy Allen has demonstrated clearly why he would drop that because the average price of a house in 1996 was €80,000 whereas today it is €314,000.
I would also like to ask the Minster about the roads programme, on page 4.
We will be dealing with these later under different subheads. We are now on opening remarks. In fairness, Deputy McCormack was not here for the start of the meeting and we agreed a format when we started. His colleague, Deputy Allen, spoke on behalf of the Fine Gael Party——
That is fine.
——and was given time to speak. Did Deputy Lynch want to say something?
Will I will be able to make a contribution when we get to the subheads?
Of course the Deputy will be able to make a contribution. We would be pleased to hear from her. We will now proceed to a general discussion of the Estimates, starting with subhead A.
It might be helpful if the Chairman called out the subheads.
I want to ask about consultancy services, subhead A7.
The figures there are for IT consultancy of €30,000 and non-IT consultancy of €431,000. For the benefit of the Deputy I will give him the programmes: technical evaluation of pilot social inclusion units rewrite; examine the issue of trust-type organisations to manage heritage properties; legal advice to forum for the construction sector; costing system development for local authorities; personnel management development system; review of local government funding; report on the ownership and control of building land; communications consultancy; Department's funding of committee on public management research; and a procurement study for capital expenditure on the local government sector.
On local government funding the Minister gave me the impression, anyhow, that the group had just been set up in recent times and would report later this year. However, I understood it was there since well into last year.
We set the process in place last year. We had to go through a detailed public procurement process. The Department of Finance was involved in it as well. The process was completed early last year. The members were appointed early this year.
When will they report?
We will give them all the time they want to get it right. The Deputy and I want to get it right. I will be very interested to see when this report comes out but I hope it will be within the year.
What about the A & L Goodbody report on landholding in Dublin?
It is with the NESC and the two reports are feeding into one another. The new report from the Donovan committee is included too. The three are being considered together.
We received a commitment in the Dáil that as soon as the report was available to the Department it would be made available to other parties in the House but that has not happened.
As soon as the study of the reports is completed I will make them all available together. I have no problem with that.
The commitment was that they would be finished in 2003 and would be available by the end of that year.
That was an estimate at the time. I would like them to finish their work so that the Deputies would have time——
It is finished but it has gone to——
It is not finished.
Is the Goodbody report not finished?
The Goodbody report has been submitted and the NESC is considering it.
That is the one to which I refer. As it is finished can it be made available?
The NESC wants to look at the detail in it in order to produce an overall report. As a courtesy to the NESC it would not be right to put one report out in that situation.
As a courtesy to the Opposition parties involved in the debate——
I was referring to the Deputy and the need to have the full picture. I would like all the reports to be made available together. The debate would be more balanced than if we just put out one report.
I am tempted to say that it has been suppressed.
It is not. I have no issue with it.
It has been completed since December 2003 yet we cannot see it.
Does the reference to consultancy services cover those of which local authorities would avail? Or is it strictly within the Department?
It is strictly within the Department, because the Department is the client.
What about consultancy services that local authorities use, which are not mentioned here under the heading of local authorities?
That will be shown in the local authority budgets.
There is significant expertise within local authorities, which hire people on the basis of their engineering or planning ability. Those who come up through the ranks of the service have taken various courses to equip themselves to deal with urban planning or other such issues. In that context does the Minister think that we have gone too far with the consultancy business? We have a fully staffed local authority service yet we seem to be farming out the work which local authorities should be doing.
There are certain matters on which it is necessary to get independent expert advice. Certain engineering projects can be done more efficiently from outside the system but the local authorities seem to spend a large sum on consultancy services when people employed at that level should have the expertise to do it themselves. Is it the case that the local authorities are just a management service?
Value for money is a key issue and I expect that the councillors will scrutinise these expenses when they come before them in their estimates to ensure that they are getting value for money. There are several large projects, particularly specialised projects for which it is necessary to bring in consultants. They probably contribute to greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness. It is true that there is a wide range of people with various skills employed at local government level but consultancy is not exclusive to the private sector. Private companies do it all the time. It is a matter of managing the available resources. There are good skills in-house and everywhere, whether in the Department or in local government, it is preferable to try to manage as much as possible in-house. By and large that happens.
I would caution against an automatic recourse to consultants to do everything which is probably what the Deputy is suggesting and I agree that should not be the case. Where the work can be carried out in-house it should be done so. Good councils ensure that the manager or the directors of service are answerable and if they are appointing consultants they are scrutinised in advance as to why it is necessary. If it is fully explained to the council and if the council is satisfied there is a need that is fair enough.
One is never asked to consider something in advance, one is asked to approve of something when it is almost finished. Most councillors are nervous at that suggestion because another consultant might then be called in to look at the fact that the systems are not being properly managed. It needs to be examined. One hires either a manager or an engineer. If one hires an engineer she or he should be expected to work as an engineer.
That is an important point but the Deputy should bear in mind that the budget for the year is decided at the estimates stage. The councillors do nothing in advance of that. At that time the councillors should consider what is provided for in the estimates for consultancy for the coming year.
The consultancy fee is built into the project when it arrives on the Minister's desk. That has been my experience of local authorities. A project does not arrive alone, it comes as a project plus the consultant.
Large water treatment plants are design, build and operate projects.
I have no difficulty with that.
They are separate.
I have no difficulty with most of the projects, it just seems to have become an automatic feature.
We will move on to subhead B: the housing programme.
Does that include the DPG?
Yes.
What has happened to the review that was repeatedly promised?
People do not work continuously on this. They touch on it now and again. We are still working on it but in the meantime there is a great deal of liaison between the Department and various local authorities and some of the local authorities are beginning to move on many of the things we have discussed in the review, such as means testing, medical needs testing, prioritizing and standard costing. If we were to sit down and work on this for a week we would probably be finished but we dip in and out of it. We will finish and publish it within a few months.
Given that the Minister of State has said that if he sat down and applied himself to it he could finish it within a week I plead with him to do that because there is serious hardship. I note the lecture——
It is not a lecture, it is a presentation.
It is not as simple as that. There is need for a review and overhaul and for a combining of the three types of support, the essential repairs, housing for the elderly, and the disabled person's grant. The sooner this is done and some order brought into it, the better because people are suffering severe and serious hardship. The stories are not invented, they are factual.
I agree with what Deputy Allen said with regard to the review and I welcome the review and its findings because we have all seen cases of duplication and triplication with all three schemes while in the other cases people avail of no scheme. It is necessary and I welcome the fact that the Government has taken it on board to work on this review, but I would also welcome the results of the review being put into practice sooner rather than later.
I was deferring to the Minister. On this programme I fully support Deputy Allen's comments about the disabled person's grant and the housing aid for the elderly. Perhaps other councils do not have a large draw on that fund but in Cork city and county it is at crisis level. People, myself included, are being told every day, that there is a two year waiting list for the simplest of things. Not all are elderly people with disabilities brought on through illness or old age but most are and they cannot wait two years. To wait two years is a nonsense because it would be of no benefit to them and the fact that the house in which they want to live within the community is not fit for them to inhabit because they can no longer operate within that structure means that they are removed from the community. It is more costly, as the Minister well knows, to have people in nursing homes or in full-time care in hospitals, whether community or day hospitals. That is the situation.
I attended this committee meeting because of a case in Cork County Council which is both frightening and depressing. That is no exaggeration — I can furnish the details. Work needed to be done on a once-off house, built by the county council which would now be regarded as a farm labourer's cottage. The work required was to install a bathroom and toilet, not to refurbish but to install these because they were not there originally. A pit had to be dug. However, because of the lack of funding and the unwillingness of the health board and the county council to come together and get the work done, the job was eventually done by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. I do not know how the Minister feels about such matters but if it is the State's responsibility it should not fall to a charitable organisation to get involved in a case such as the one I outlined. Charitable organisations have many other demands on their funds. Three years down the line that work has not been completed. In Cork city and county people are being told that stair lifts will be provided but no bathrooms will be installed downstairs. No more building is taking place. I refer to people who will have to resort to full-time care if alterations are not carried out on their homes. That is ridiculous because it is much more expensive.
I beseech the Minister of State to increase the budget to Cork city and county. We are at crisis point as we speak. There is a two year waiting list and people are being told no more construction will be carried out. Stair lifts are the only option on offer. Stroke victims and people with Parkinson's disease are nervous of stair lifts. They will not operate them as they are frightened of not being in control. This budget needs to be increased.
I have another question for the Minister of State in regard to local authority housing. I do not dismiss what other Deputies have said. I accept that situations can differ from one area to another. A large proportion of the waiting list in Cork city consists of single men in their 40s and 50s or separated men in their 40s and 50s. These people are on the list for at least ten to 12 years. In many cases they live in hovels because that is all they can afford. If they are separated they also support their families, as should be the case. They are approaching old age, a concept that no longer exists for the Civil Service as one can now work forever. They are getting older and living in very poor housing conditions, yet there is no recognition of their plight. Apart from the fact that we do not have enough housing provision anyway, these people will never qualify for a three-bedroom semi-detached house. Nor will they ever qualify for an isolated bungalow. The Minister should examine this issue. I am fascinated that men are not more conscious of the needs of men in this situation. I see there are no women among the officials. The world has changed and will continue to change. Some people will not marry and have families and this must be taken into account.
I will not repeat what was said by previous speakers. I agree with the points made, especially Deputy Lynch's remark about the world changing.
Fuel poverty is another issue that affects many of the people in question, whether they are disabled or on a low income. Sadly, the two often go together. Is there further work to be done? Groups like Energy Action have been going around for years with the support of FÁS, which has as much to do with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment as with this Department. Is there a more systematic and comprehensive way of dealing with fuel poverty for those households that are in need of remedial work? In recognition of the increasing problem of fuel poverty, apart from the issue of new building stock, which I hope should avoid the mistakes of the past, building and insulation standards are greatly improved, not to speak of the potential for solar water heating and so forth. I am not sure if improvement loans are included here. I would like to be proven wrong on that, but all the indications at the moment suggest they are not included.
A few speakers referred to the disabled person's grant. I realise what is happening. Many of the problems that have evolved at local authority level probably did so five or six years ago when we increased the grants from 75% to 90% and prices went through the roof. I hate talking just about money because of inflation and other factors, but if one looks at the money spent over the past five or six years, it has increased by up to 500%. Not alone that, but the number of jobs carried out under the disabled person's grant scheme has more than doubled in that period. References to money can often be misleading because one is not comparing like with like. Some people make the argument that because Dublin has a young population in comparison with places in the west of Ireland, where the population is older, that more applications should come from outside Dublin. It is interesting to note the disparity between local authorities in the uptake of the scheme. By and large, the uptake should be roughly similar in all counties with a slightly higher proportion of applications from the western seaboard compared to the eastern seaboard.
Regardless of the scheme in question, local authorities must prioritise. Members referred to sad cases. Local authorities should be able to prioritise schemes for which there is most demand. We should not have to hold their hand and tell them how to do that. We want them to bring in means testing so that they can provide for those most in need. The numbers have gone up significantly. Even last year the allocations we gave to some counties were not spent; we got money back. Most counties who applied for additional funding got it in November.
Local authorities have to provide a third of the funding required and some do not do it to the same extent as others. Other local authorities started to allocate the money last October. They told people they could go ahead with extensions as if they expected it could be done in two days. Some of the decisions taken by local authorities are ridiculous.
The aim of combining the three schemes was to try to make them more focused. I am not sure about the point about chair lifts. I was in a warehouse in Dublin some months ago which stored stair lifts that had once been installed in houses — at great cost to the taxpayer — but were removed following the deaths of those who required them.
They are customised to particular houses. They are quite wasteful.
I was told that adjustments could be made. They can be of great value to an elderly person, but if a young family then moves into a house with a stair lift they are just for the amusement of the children. I accept what Deputy Lynch said about some people not liking stair lifts, but if somebody has a three-bedroom house the stair lift will give them the freedom to get to the bathroom or bedroom. We cannot always build an extra room downstairs if the professionals recommend that a stair lift is adequate.
They are recommended in every situation. It is currently the only solution on offer from Cork City Council.
I accept that but funding has been significantly increased. The original allocation last year was €55 million. There is, however, a huge variance and I am of the opinion that the criteria must be slightly different. Some counties appear to consider it a glorified house improvement scheme. Or perhaps the medical people are more generous in some areas than in others. I realise that there is a major demand. Regardless of the level of resources we provide, however, local authorities must have a scheme which allows them the flexibility to deal quickly with the cases of those who are most in need.
Reference was made to Cork. The waiting list there last year numbered 48,000 and I understand that 32% of these were single men and women and a further 30% were lone parents with one child. Local authorities have been slow to move away from what they perceive to be their traditional role, namely, building three-bedroom semi-detached houses. I was a member for a local authority for a long period and I am aware that they talk about the need to look at the changes taking in place in society, etc., but when plans are received they seem to revert to their preference for three-bedroom semi-detached houses. There has been some movement in this area but it is not keeping pace with the numbers on the waiting lists. The local authorities have been slow to move away from the perception of the traditional family model and take account of the changes in society and the new demands to which these give rise.
Many of the people to whom the Deputy referred may be on rent allowances.
Yes.
Local authorities need only look at their own waiting lists to see the kind of people and families that are seeking housing. I saw a plan recently from a local authority which contained provision for two-bedroom houses for non-expanding families, whatever they might be. There is also a need for one-bedroom apartments or whatever. The local authorities are moving away from the old attitudes at a snail's pace.
The issue of fuel poverty was mentioned. I am due to meet representatives of Energy Action in the near future.
The Minister of State can give them my best wishes.
Energy Action has done a great deal of good work to date, mainly in the Dublin area. It has, however, done some pilot projects further afield.
Effectively, it is doing the Government's work.
Okay. I understand Energy Action may be considering broadening its horizons. Fuel poverty is a problem. For the past ten years, heating systems have been installed in all newly built local authority houses. Under the regeneration or remedial work schemes, many other local authority houses are having new systems installed. Any of the new houses are built to design. Energy Action has solved the problem in Dublin to a great extent and it may be coming forward with plans to extend what it is doing.
When discussing house prices, one must consider what has happened in the economy in the past number of years. The recent census shows an 8% increase in the population in six years. I do not believe any other country in western Europe or beyond experienced such an increase. In addition, there have been huge economic development and growth and changes in the household formation demographic. If one considers a group of 1 million members of the population, one will see that, compared to ten or 20 years ago, family units are getting smaller. As a result, even if the population remained static, far more housing units would be required. Other countries may have had similar experiences in different eras. What we are experiencing is economic growth, changes in the household formation demographic and a huge influx of returning emigrants and incoming immigrants. As already stated, the population has risen by 8% in six years which is an enormous jump. Trying to provide housing for those people, where social or affordable in nature, is a huge challenge. We are getting there to a large extent and we are concentrating on supply because that is the only way to deal with this matter.
I accept that house prices have risen. However, the issue is more one of affordability rather than one of price. One need only ask who obtained mortgages six, eight or ten years ago the percentage of their take-home pay required for repayments at that stage and the percentage required now. Houses have become more expensive but, by and large, from an affordability point of view this is not reflected to the same extent. Once we can continue to provide a high rate of supply, progress will be made.
I was asked why we refer to figures such as 68,000 houses or 17,000 per 1,000. We do so because it puts matters in context. If, in the early 1990s, we built 22,000 houses per year and we are now building 68,000, this shows the progress that has been made. It is an enormous leap forward and shows just what has been achieved. The issue is about getting people on the property ladder. A recent CSO survey, which may have been part of the census——
Why were the grants abolished?
The first-time buyer's grant?
Yes. The Minister of State was just talking about getting people on the property ladder.
The first-time buyer's grant was hugely important some years ago. However, the stage had been reached where that was no longer the case and people were spending the money to pay for curtains and carpets.
Those are important.
We are spending €22 million on site subsidies at present. That money, which will soon match what we were spending on the first-time buyer's grant, is better targeted and is spent in a much more focused way. We are giving real help to people who need it. Many of those who received first-time buyer's grants did not particularly need them. The site subsidies paid on the affordable housing scheme are targeted at the people who have lost out. Many people with very good jobs obtained first-time buyer's grants and that would not be the type of property some of them would purchase.
We will agree to disagree on that matter.
We are spending money. First-time buyers, whether well-off or not, still receive the mortgage allowance, which was increased last year, and they still receive the benefit of stamp duty reductions. The notion that we are doing nothing for first-time buyers is not correct. We are targeting and focusing site subsidies at people in a specific income bracket.
Deputy Gilmore referred to Part 5. Any new housing scheme is slow to come on stream. A total of 163 units were completed under the Part 5 provisions last year. At the end of the year a further 620 were under construction and agreement had been reached in respect of the building of a further 1,200. Part 5, like anything else with housing, is a slow burner. However, it will have a significant impact. Many, perhaps not all, of the 620 units under construction will completed before the end of the year. From now on, that will be the figure for completions in any year.
Houses built under Part 5 were always meant to be included in the 10,000 houses to which Sustaining Progress refers.
I never read that in the agreement.
The social partners are not confused about this. If members consult the documentation from the time the agreement was reached, they will discover that this is the case. I can read it into the record for the benefit of the committee, if members so wish. The social partners are not arguing about this.
Part 5 projects could have proceeded without the social partnership agreement. They were going to proceed in any event. How could they be included in the agreement? This is a three card trick.
Part 5 projects were included in the 10,000. State lands were provided for 6,100 sites. Building has already commenced on some of these. The scheme in Finglas in my constituency to which Deputy Gilmore referred and on which construction commenced a few weeks ago does not come under the Part 5 dividend. Approximately 166 out of 500 units in this scheme are affordable houses and Part 5 does not extend to schemes where the percentage is 30% or 35%. That scheme genuinely comes under Sustaining Progress. It would not come under Part 5.
The Minister of State admitted in the Dáil a few months ago that no design team was set up, no plan put together and no foundation laid for any of the 10,000 affordable houses proposed under the Sustaining Progress agreement. How can we suddenly have a certain number built a few months later? That is a contradiction.
They are not built. The foundation work started five or six weeks ago. However, 24 different sites are being worked on, some of them at planning stage. The one in Finglas is probably the only one where a foundation is laid. However, there will be 24 sites. Any private developer will tell us that from the time he gets a site, it takes three or four years before building starts on it. Although we are trying to fast track these sites, they will take approximately the same time. We hope more of them will start this year but most of them will probably not start until next year because people are still working on the sites announced last year. Progress will be slow. However, the dividend will come through, just as it is now coming through from Part 5. It takes time.
One of the Deputies also spoke about the number of people in their 30s who now live at home with their parents. That is true, but it is meaningless at the same time. Where were those sons and daughters in their 30s some 25 years ago? They had emigrated. Now we have a growing economy, they no longer have to emigrate. Those of us who knock on doors looking for votes are no longer told by people at the door that they had reared five children who all left the country. Adult children are now working in this country. Some of them may be building their own houses and some of them may be living with their parents. However, trying to compare that with the figures of 15 or 20 years ago is meaningless without an explanation. The simple explanation is that many of the people who would have emigrated 20 years ago are now in the country and some of them are with their parents.
Perhaps the Minister of State could conclude his remarks because we are behind time.
I have answered most of the questions.
Are we happy with that?
Yes.
We shall move on to subhead C, which deals with the environment programme.
I have a question relating to subhead C2 and the Environmental Protection Agency. There is a reduction of almost €5 million in the——
For the Deputy's benefit, there is huge buoyancy in the environment fund and we are using it for research going through the environment fund rather than showing it.
Okay.
Perhaps we will get some answers now, but I am not sure whether it is possible for the Minister to give answers on the Environmental Protection Agency. Is the funding for the agency sufficient from the Minister's point of view? Under subhead C2 it is reduced from €19.155 million in 2003 to €14.405 million in 2004. Many of the issues, particularly illegal dumping, would appear to call for the need for increased funding.
We changed it again and the sum of €7.25 million must be added to that. We included all the offices of environmental enforcement through the environment fund and that is why there is a difference. The Vote has increased. The total this year is €34 million, a change from the outturn of €28 million last year.
It is all included therefore. Does the Minister expect illegal dumping to be tackled and an end put to it?
The new offices are included. I have also provided another €5 million directly to local authorities for enforcement. We are putting a huge amount into enforcement. This year over €12 million will be spent on enforcement, which is only right. We must ensure we enforce regulations. This will not stop. It will be part and parcel of our way forward until there is an end to this issue.
I noted the Deputy's earlier comments and I agree. We are trying to take a whole island approach. It is important to have a cohesive approach. I have had meetings with the Minister responsible in Northern Ireland and we have established an all-island contract for white goods. The more we do this the better. We need harmonisation between costs and charges on both parts of the island in order to stop some places becoming more attractive than others. Legitimate issues need ironing out in order to disincentivise some of the movement going on. We cannot tolerate illegal dumping. The director general of the EPA said last week that the agency was in contact with both the police force in Northern Ireland and the Garda and a high-level meeting will be held this week in this regard. We have a full-on approach and we are all ad idem on the issue.
The Minister told me there was no grant available for testing for radon gas. However, there have been calls for some attention to be given to the issue in the form of funding, whether for Cahirciveen, Wicklow, parts of Donegal or wherever radon is a problem. Has the Minister given thought to that?
I was surprised that the take-up was so extraordinarily low when the RPII publicised the issue widely and provided free test packs.
Were they all free?
They were.
I paid for mine. Will I get my money back?
I did not deal directly with that. Radon gas is an issue. I am happy to say that radon gas is taken into account in the building of new properties. People must make themselves aware of conditions in their properties. Awareness information and technical advice are available from the RPII and it has stated publicly that it is quite happy to be contacted on the matter. However, it has said that the take-up is extremely low.
How much of this is free?
The testing kit is free I think. Sorry, it appears I am wrong and they are full price. I thought I heard they were free. They are subsidised.
There is a cost but no remediation grant is available.
Not at this stage.
The only place I can find the climate change strategy mentioned is, perhaps, in the International Meteorological Organisation. Is any funding available to implement that strategy?
The EPA is carrying out a substantial research programme which is linked to international organisations. I accept and do not dispute that we have problems in Ireland. The Irish EU Presidency and our role within the Union play a strong role in the context of the climate change issue, particularly with regard to Kyoto. We have supported others and led much of the debate internationally. The issue has dominated much of the Presidency in international fora and we have had to lead on the issue. We have credibility on it because people know of our issue with regard to the economic drive over the past few years.
We are beginning to see some decoupling on the matter. It is important that we were one of the first countries to get in with our emissions trading. The pilot phase for the next three years is a learning by doing phase. I am not a sceptic on the issue and I have no doubts. The scientific evidence throughout the world is overwhelming and it is no longer the case that any argument that we should question this can be sustained. The global challenge is huge and we must play our part. If we do not, we will pay the price, not only nationally but internationally.
Major issues will have to be grappled with down the line. Ireland and the European Union hope Russia will ratify the Kyoto Protocol as soon as possible although there are other issues feeding into the process from the Russian perspective. However, the most recent indications are positive. Some 120 countries have now ratified the protocol. It is regrettable that America has not ratified it. Nevertheless, a number of states in America are adopting the base lines set down in the protocol and, in some cases, exceeding them. That should emphasise the message to business here that the future is a clean economics agenda and that there will be economic advantage. I have been trying to persuade people of that. However, much of the debate relates to too narrow a time frame. The mountain to be climbed is daunting if one considers the effect one can have on it in a week or a year rather than taking the medium to long-term view.
Where do we want to position Ireland in the global economy on this agenda? The possibilities for job creation and major investment in research are enormous. We are only scratching the surface in terms of technology, for example, regarding where the world is going. We need to shift and hold our debate in a much broader time frame. We also need a rational debate. We need to encourage people to engage in such a debate by removing the fear factor from the immediate challenges and persuading people that there will be enormous benefits as we move forward. We will change strategy again later this year when we see where we are.
Does that include the Department of Transport? Ireland is the most car-dependent country in the world. Does that feed in?
It does. It is interdepartmental. It is one of the changes occurring in Government. There is no point in including environmental issues at the end. Any Department formulating new policies must now take the environment as a starting point and integrate it into its thought processes. That is what we are trying to achieve.
As President of the environmental Ministers, can the Minister outline the context of the discussions that have taken place with the authorities in the USA regarding the Kyoto Protocol? Enormous damage is being done by the USA's environmental policy. I will not say it is a waste of effort, but our efforts and the pain we endure will come to nought if the USA does not toe the line. Are any efforts being made to, at a minimum, convince the USA to change its policy or, at a maximum, accuse it of being an international environmental vandal because of its policy?
It is an important point. I engaged directly with Mr. Michael Levitt, the new Director of the EPA from the Bush cabinet, in Paris recently. I was glad, first of all, that he came. That is very important. We know the historical views of the USA. The Americans partook in a very interesting three-day round table discussion on this issue under many different headings. They were there to find out the views of the rest of the world on this, and all of the major countries, including India and China, were there.
As I said in reply to Deputy Sargent, what is happening in America is interesting. While there may be an overarching view from central government, individual states are now moving, some of them quite rapidly, to buy into the Kyoto Protocol. The scientific evidence is clear, and we will continue to press the United States in our role as Presidency. We also engaged with others at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development following the meeting in Paris, and we did so also from an Irish perspective.
The Senator is correct in his assessment that no individual country or block of countries can solve this issue on its own, and the consequences of doing nothing for 30 or 50 years are very serious. I am not a zealot but I believe the evidence is clear. The responsibility bearing down on the Government and on our European colleagues is greater. Policy formulation across all Departments must in future embrace that view. It will not be easy to address the problems, but we must find a balance and create a road map through it.
It will be a road map in more ways the one.
There was no pun intended.
Subhead D deals with local government.
Everything that needed to be said has been said. I do not wish to be repetitive. The sooner the Commission on Local Government Funding completes its study and issues its report and we can get down to the hard talking and discussion the better. It is probably no coincidence that this has been deferred until after the local elections.
It is not. I am determined to produce it as soon as possible.
We await the report with interest. Regarding the other issues, we have covered them in previous meetings.
I am interested to see that An Chomhairle Oidhreachta, the Heritage Council, is funded by the national lottery.
We are on subhead D, not subhead E.
I apologise. I am jumping ahead.
We will move on to subhead E.
For how long has the Heritage Council been funded by the national lottery?
It has always been funded by the national lottery.
It started off as a lottery funded organisation. The National Parks and Wildlife Service does not seem to have got much of an increase when inflation is taken into account. A number of vacancies exist in what was called the wildlife ranger network. Is there any focus on trying to fill those vacancies? I understand some changes are expected. Have those changes taken place in terms of infrastructure organisation? Are the vacancies being filled?
I agree with the Deputy. However, we are to some degree at the mercy of the Civil Service Commission. I want these posts filled. The reorganisation which is now fully completed and the transfer of resources and responsibilities will make that a little clearer. I want this sorted out, but it is the commission that appoints civil servants and the sooner it fills these positions the better.
In my area of County Dublin wildlife is completely unmonitored and unprotected at the moment.
I would not agree it is necessarily so.
The Garda Síochána has a role but it has enough to do.
I do not agree it is totally unmonitored. I agree we need more people and this is the purpose of training.
If it is not totally unmonitored, who is monitoring it?
We transfer resources and deploy people in different parts of the country where needed. I do not dispute the Deputy's point. I accept that we need more people.
Is there a time frame?
We are urging the Civil Service Commission to appoint people as quickly as possible.
Did the Minister tell the Civil Service Commission that the vacancies need to be filled by a certain date?
I do not have that authority, but the commission knows these positions must be filled and that we are anxious to fill them.
We will move on to subhead F.
I have a number of questions on F10 — planning tribunals. The cost has almost doubled. Could the Minister provide a breakdown of the costs? Is it expected that the level of expenditure on tribunals will continue at this level or that it will increase? Under subhead F11 — planning and development, funding of €300,000 is provided for the development of the national spatial strategy. We have not yet had a Dáil debate on it. A decentralisation programme has been announced, which contradicts much of what is in the spatial strategy. The sum of €300,000 seems small to carry out the proposals in the strategy. F12 — miscellaneous services has been allocated €5.112 million. Where did we find the money spent on electronic voting machines and all associated expenditure?
The Deputy has asked a couple of questions. On the planning tribunal subhead, the answer is "yes". It is an estimate. We just do not know, as the Deputy is aware. We are waiting for bills to arrive. We do not know what will arrive. We are trying to be as prepared as we can. The figures are indicative as they relate to costs. We will have to wait to see what happens.
There may be a saving.
As the Secretary General said to me, the moneys may not be spent this year. We just do not know when the bills will arrive. It is not a cheap exercise over time — it is a very expensive one. That is the way it is. I would like to speak about the national spatial strategy. I wonder where the figure of €300,000 arises. It was obviously more than that.
There is €70,000 going to An Taisce.
No, that was for last year. I did not repeat it. It was a one-off allocation. It is part of the overall cost of the spatial strategy. There were some consultancies and some work was carried out in the Department.
What does An Taisce get each year?
An Taisce is involved in the spring clean campaign, the blue flag awards and the green schools programmes. The Department supports such positive initiatives.
The Department published draft guidelines on one-off housing. When does it expect to finalise them?
Many submissions have been received. The Department has received almost 100 responses to the draft guidelines. It is obvious that we have to go through it. It will probably be the autumn by the time we are finished going through the submissions.
I thought the Minister would announce them before the local elections.
I announced what the draft guidelines will be. I have made them available for consultation.
I would also like to ask about the franchise on the voting machines.
I have said on many occasions that it does not form a part of the Department's Vote. It comes from the Central Fund and shows up in the Vote of the Department of Finance. We have had a great deal of discussion about the matter. The Deputy asked me earlier what is happening. The commission was charged with producing an initial report and then preparing further reports. That is what the commission wanted in its terms of reference and we included it. The commission has raised some issues. It would like to undertake some testing — albeit a repeat of testing that has been carried internationally — and I am fine with that. It has made some recommendations and it may make some more. We will try to fulfil any recommendations that are made. It is interesting that the commission said little, generally, about the machines but preferred to concentrate on the software.
What does the Minister mean by that? Surely the software is part of the machines.
No, the commission mentioned the count software rather then the embedded software in the machines. I would like to know the context in which the commission discussed security issues. It made its point because it thinks the security could and should be strengthened. That is fair enough and I do not have an issue with it. I would like to know the exact context of some of what it means. How would somebody do it? In what context would they break in? We will work that out with the commission. I do not doubt that the commission, which has a strong remit on these issues, will return with a further report. I am confident that we can meet the challenges it presents.
Do they need ministerial orders or regulations for any of their recommendations?
No, the recommendations were covered by the Bill. When the Deputy inquired earlier about this matter, I said that I do not need to do anything further.
What about the reservations that have been expressed about the commission's terms of reference? It has been argued that the commission is not charged with examining the verifiable paper audit trail.
It has made a comment in that regard.
Has the Minister considered extending the commission's terms of reference to allow it to examine the verifiable paper audit trail?
It has not formally approached me to ask me to extend its terms of reference. It is important that we bring to a conclusion, one way or the other, the issue that the commission was charged with considering. The commission is heavily engaged in that regard. I do not want to say any more before the commission has finished its work. I will endeavour to fulfil any requests made by the commission to the Department.
I would like to ask about the expenditure incurred. This committee conducted a detailed examination of the electronic voting equipment. The committee's deliberations on 18 December were terminated prematurely and a contract for the purchase of the equipment and associated costs was signed the following day. Is the Minister saying that the committee's role does not involve asking questions because the cost of electronic voting is included under the Vote of the Department of Finance?
No, I will deal with the questions. I do not have an issue in that regard. I mentioned that the Vote is a matter for the Department of Finance in the context of the Estimates that are before the committee. I will continue to deal with issue.
Can the Minister answer the questions?
Which questions?
I have asked about the total expenditure to date.
I am not dealing with that today. The 7,321 voting machines cost €40 million, including VAT. Other costs relate to programmes, ballot modules, etc.
Does the figure of €40 million include the extra machines that were ordered?
The figure includes them all. There was a suggestion that we were looking for 300 more machines, but we did not get them. Such costs were not incurred. I am not worried about the expenditure on the machines because I do not doubt that they will be used. The commission strongly supported many of the tests that were done. It said in its report that it has no reason to suspect that the system does not work. It wants to conduct its own analysis and testing. If I had known when the commission was established that it would seek to conduct separate tests, I would have provided for it. It is entitled to seek to do so. I do not have any argument with the commission in that regard. I do not doubt that the money will be well spent and that we will move on. This debate may be seen in the future as having been important. The commission has raised some issues about the count software, but it made clear in its report that the jury is out.
We will bide our time.
It is an interesting and important debate. Having re-examined the matter, I do not doubt that our capital investment in the system is secure.
I asked questions about the storage of the machines. How much does it cost? What are the regulations that govern the storage of the machines? As I said earlier, a departmental spokesman stated that it is a matter for the returning officers.
The returning officers are independent in their functions in this regard, just as they are in storing ballot boxes, etc. I do not have a role in that regard. No costs are involved in many cases.
Who eventually foots the bill?
It comes from the Central Fund. All matters relating to elections——
Therefore, it is a function of Deputies to ask questions and to seek to get answers.
Yes, but the money in question is not being provided in this Estimate. I am not responsible for the Estimates of the Department of Finance, but I am responsible for electronic voting, with which I will deal. I do not think any bills have been presented for it to date. I do not think there will be a huge change.
Surely the Department is aware of the liabilities. We know that the cost of storage in Waterford city is €50,000. We are aware that there is a liability of approximately €30,000 per annum in Limerick. What is the estimated liability for the total storage throughout the country? Surely an exercise must have been done in that regard.
I am not dealing with that. I do not have the figure. The Department of Finance will deal with it. Individual returning officers who present bills will ensure that there is a need for the expenditure.
There is a need for it now all right.
I am interested in why some places do not have any expenditure at all.
Perhaps they are stored in public buildings.
Yes.
I would like to get detailed information on the matter. I will ask for it formally.
I will provide it if I can get it in the context of the Estimate.
The Minister has said that it is not part of the Estimate.
I will have no difficulty in making it public when it is available.
We will not revisit old battles. Is the Minster saying that if the commission seeks a widening of its terms of reference, he is open to allowing it to examine the question of the verifiable paper audit trail?
As I understand it, the terms of reference provided the commission with an opportunity, which was stated publicly, to present one or more reports. As we now know, that will be the case. What the commission may or may not want beyond that is a matter for it. It is now established under primary legislation on a statutory footing and it is a matter for the commission. My understanding is that the commission wants to complete its examination of the system with which it has been presented. If issues arise whereby we have to act to meet the commission's recommendations, we will fulfil our obligations as best we can.
Is the Minister saying that the commission is getting full co-operation from his Department?
Absolutely. It has from the outset. It could not work any other way.
I wish to ask a few questions under subhead F. I do not want to go into the question of electronic voting because it will come back for discussion. However, as regards the related matter of the register, is there any provision to move on from present provisions? We talk about paper-based systems but the registration of people to vote is another matter. Going from door to door we find people asking for forms so they can register to vote because they are not on the register. With PPS numbers, can people not be registered automatically? Should that not be a focus for the Department? In that way, everybody could be registered electronically so whatever we decide to do with the voting system, at least everybody will be entitled to exercise their franchise. It is a major issue. Various county sheriffs have said the register is a disgrace. Local authorities have a role but surely the Department has a co-ordinating role.
For monetary as much as for life-saving reasons, we need to examine what appears to be a conflict between different ambulance and fire brigade services. Whatever way the system works, they seem to be getting simultaneous emergency calls so that both services arrive together. I have received calls from ambulance crews about this. It is not something I am surmising from newspaper reports. Ambulance crews say they are tired of finding themselves arriving at the same time as the fire brigade.
For the Deputy's benefit, my Department has no involvement in this matter. It is only in Dublin that the fire services provide some capital assistance, but in operational terms it has nothing to do with my Department. It concerns health boards around the country.
The Minister might file it away when he gets an opportunity to do so, as no doubt he will be chairing meetings from time to time, as well as meeting groups. I am bringing it to the Minister's attention that it is a problem.
Okay.
The Minister spoke about one-off costs for the tidy towns competition. Last year's expenditure involved the payment of certain one-off costs but can the Minister indicate what they were? I will not go into the tribunals because the Minister has already answered a question about them but I have a question relating to miscellaneous services. Dog control is referred to. It is an increasing issue for many people and not just concerning dangerous breeds. I have discussed the matter with the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, during an Adjournment debate. There is a general need to examine the relevant legislation along with the amount of money that is being spent on dog control. Cats also need to be taken account of in this regard because there is a major problem with feral cats. I do not know whether dog control is dealt with separately to cat control but attention should be paid to both issues.
The Act allows for the control of cats and dogs. As the Deputy knows, there has been some engagement by the Department with various representative groups on these issues. I agree with the Deputy that these issues need to be resolved and I intend to come back to the committee and the House regarding them in the autumn. Other Departments are also involved, as the Deputy knows.
What about the costs concerning the tidy towns competition?
There were one-off residual costs because people had not claimed the money we gave them over the years.
Is any action being taken on the electoral register?
The Deputy has raised a point that was also raised earlier by Deputy Allen. We can deal with issues that have arisen concerning the whole electoral system. We have modernised the system so that it is now possible for a person to log on to the Internet to find out if they are on the register or not. That cannot be done for all constituencies but it is the case for some of them. Whether it is perceptual or real, the general view of the way in which the register is organised is probably that it is not the best in the world. We can rectify it, given the systems that are going into local authorities. We can also engage on other issues concerning the whole electoral process.
Given the PPS number system, can people be automatically registered once they become 18 years of age?
I suppose anything is possible but, in this context, I do not want to make up policy as I go along. I take the Deputy's point, however. There is a range of issues involved in this and we will look at them in the near future.
I had one question about the clean up in Haulbowline.
I am informed that Cork County Council will be advertising later this week for the engagement of professional services to assist it in overseeing the site investigation exercise. It is expected that professional expertise will be engaged by July this year. It is hoped that the procurement of the actual site investigation will take place in the autumn.
Does the Minister expect the amount mentioned in the Estimate to cover the full cost of the clean up?
It will be just for this year. It will only cover what we are doing at present.
Is there an estimate?
I do not want to say, for obvious reasons. There are various ideas as to what it might cost but I am not going to put a guess figure on it, because then it will become x, y or z. I do not know and that is why we need a ministerial order. As the Deputy knows, there is also a court case involved in the process.
With regard to the franchise, there seems to be confusion in some parts of the country about the photographs for the ballot papers on election day. There was no advice sent out about the photographs that would be required for electronic voting. The requirements are different to those for ballot papers. Some returning officers are refusing to accept the specifications stated in the circular that was issued in anticipation of electronic voting. For example, I am told that in County Laois there have been problems in this regard, in addition to Cork city. Has the Department been made aware of these problems?
I was not aware of them but I will look into the matter.
I hope that some candidates do not present their nomination papers on the Saturday deadline and find that the type of photograph they present on diskette is unacceptable because of changes in the specifications arising from the abandonment of electronic voting. The matter has come to my attention and I wondered if the Minister was aware of it. Will he deal with it?
I will look into it. I can only say that in our own case — I do not want to be political here — the party is organising it and I presume it is the same case for the Deputy's party. I have not heard that there has been any problem. If there is an issue I will look into it.
I would appreciate that.
I do not know if the Minister is talking to returning officers around the country but there seems to be huge discretion in the way in which the regulations are interpreted, as to whether a signature is sufficient by itself or whether a second signature is needed from the general secretary of a party. Different counties seem to interpret the regulations differently. If it is said the Department has a rule, a returning officer may say, "That's all very well but we have to satisfy ourselves". They either follow the regulations or they make them up themselves. It seems they are doing the latter.
We will look at it.
We will proceed to subhead G, appropriations-in-aid. Have members any questions?
No.
Will Deputies make their concluding remarks?
I thank the Minister, the Minister of State and the officials who have been most forthcoming in their responses.
I too wish to thank the Minister, the Minister of State and the officials who have spent a considerable time answering questions. I appreciate their openness and I hope in following through on some of the ideas that they will come to fruition in policy.
The Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, and I thank the Chairman and the committee.
That concludes our consideration of the Revised Estimates for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for the year ending 31 December 2003 — Vote 25. I thank the Minister, Deputy Cullen, the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern and their officials for their attendance. I remind Deputies that the joint committee will meet at 2 p.m. next Tuesday, 25 May 2004, to discuss homelessness and again at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 1 June, to discuss the proposed M3 motorway with the National Roads Authority.