Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Mar 1968

Vol. 233 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 26—Local Government.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Boland)

Tairgim:

Go ndeonfar suim fhorlíontach nach mó ná £375,000 chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1968, le haghaidh Tuarastail agus Costais Oifig an Aire Rialtais Áitiúil, lena n-áirítear Deontais d'údaráis Áitiúla, Deontais agus Costais eile i ndáil le Tithíocht, agus Scéimeanna agus Deontais Ilghnéitheacha lena n-áirí-tear Deontais-i-gCabhair áirithe.

Tabharfaidh na Teachtaí faoi deara ó théacs an Mheastacháin Fhorlíon-taigh a cuireadh timpeall, go bhfuil soláthar in aghaidh dhá rud ann, an chéad cheann, £300,000, le haghaidh deontais i leith Tithíochta Príobhádaí agus an ceann eile, £85,000, le haghaidh Ranníocaíochtaí i leith muirear iasachta ar scéimeanna uisce agus séarachais poiblí agus deontais agus Ranníocaíochtaí i leith scéimeanna uisce agus saoráidí séaracha i dtithe cónaithe. Beidh coigilt de £10,000 ar sheirbhísí eile sa Vóta agus mar sin sé £375,000 an méid atá ag teastáil anois.

The voted provision for private housing grants for the year 1967-68 was £3,000,000. Of this sum, £2,728,874 had been expended on 31st January, 1968. At the present rate of demand for payments, the balance available would be insufficient to discharge claims arising before 31st March next. It is estimated that a total of £3,300,000 will be required to meet payments for the full year, and a supplementary sum of £300,000 is now being sought.

New house grants account for the bulk of the excess expenditure. Allocations of these grants totalled 6,571 in the ten months from 1st April, 1967 to 31st January, 1968, compared with 4,691 in the corresponding period of last year. Allocations for the full financial year will reach about 8,000 as compared with 5,695 for 1966-67. There has also been a sharp increase in reconstruction grants, allocations for which totalled 10,483 in the ten months ended 31st January, 1968, compared with 8,037 in the corresponding period last year. This increase is due largely to the scheme of grants for essential repairs to houses in rural areas. This scheme first came into operation in 1963-64, when 37 grants were allocated. In 1966-67, the figure had grown to 1,040 and in the ten months to 31st January, 1968, a record total of 1,950 such grants was approved.

Additional moneys are also required to meet payments due on foot of grants for the provision of private water supplies and sewerage facilities.

The amount voted for the payments of these grants and the making of contributions to local authorities in the current year was £500,000. Of this, £94,000 was apportioned for the recoupment to local authorities of supplementary grants for water supply installations paid by them to farmers who would have been eligible for the scheme of domestic grants formerly operated by the Department of Agriculture. The balance, £406,000, was apportioned to the payment of grants and it is with this sum that we are concerned here. Expenditure on the grants up to 31st January, 1968, amounted to over £400,000 out of the £406,000 earmarked for the purpose. An extra £60,000 is now required to meet commitments to the 31st March next. The demands for grants for private water supply and sewerage facilities is unprecedented and the total of allocations is expected to reach 10,000 this year. This is more than double the rate which obtained only five years ago.

The amount voted for the payment of contributions towards loan charges on public water supply and sewerage schemes, swimming pools, etc. was £985,000. Payments of contributions are made in two instalments, the first in May, being a payment on account, and the second after 31st October as final claims are received and checked. The amount paid in May was £449,890. It is estimated that the total amount required for the full year will be about £1,010,000. An additional sum of £25,000 is therefore required under this heading.

Mr. L'Estrange

I want to say that we on this side of the House approve of this expenditure because we believe that money spent on housing, on sewerage, on swimming pools and so on, is money reasonably well spent. We believe, indeed, that at the present time a crash housing programme is necessary if we want to house the number of people in our cities—I think there are 5,000 to 6,000 people looking for houses at the present time—and the numbers in our towns and also in rural areas.

An Ceann Comhairle

This relates to private housing grants, not to local government.

Mr. L'Estrange

I know, but I want to say that as far as grants for private housing are concerned, we know that the dead hand of Fianna Fáil descended on house building in 1957 and 1958 and that for many years during and immediately after that time it was impossible to get money to pay the grants. There was a long delay in every county in Ireland. We also know of course that there is very little encouragement given to people to build their own private houses. Encouragement was given away back 20 years ago when the Government at that time, the inter-Party Government, allowed the local authorities to give a second grant of £300. At that time there was the Government grant of £300 plus the local authority grant of £300. On figures I got today from the Minister, the cost of building a five-roomed house in 1957 was £2,050; at the present time, it is £3,472. In 1957 if a private builder received a grant of £600, he was getting roughly 35 per cent of the total cost of building his house. That is quite true.

Mr. Boland

Pure imagination.

Mr. L'Estrange

Well, I am using the Minister's figures: £600 in grants on a house costing roughly £2,050——

Mr. Boland

The Deputy does not say those are my figures.

Mr. L'Estrange

They are the figures given to the Minister. If we like to get more favourable figures for my argument, we can go back to 1948 or to 1951 when this grant was given by the Government in power at the time, the inter-Party Government, to encourage house building. They gave the second grant of £300. That left it at £600 and at that time one would build a five-roomed house for, I suppose, £1,400 or £1,500, with the result that the grants at that time were 40 per cent to 45 per cent of the total cost of building a house.

Now, due to Government policy, high taxation and one thing and another, the cost of building a five-roomed house, according to the Minister's figures today in answer to a question, is £3,472. That means that the person building a house today is getting the same grant as he was getting 20 years ago and, whereas at that time he was receiving over 40 per cent in grants of the total cost of building a private house, today he is only receiving 17 to 19 or 20 per cent. That is very little encouragement for those people.

The Minister has also referred to the increase under the heading of essential repair grants for essential repairs to houses in rural areas. I believe this is a good scheme. It is being worked by the majority of county councils at present. As far as we are concerned, we welcome that scheme.

As regards sewerage and water schemes, Miss Nancy O'Neill, who is the Fianna Fáil candidate in Wicklow, speaking on television on Friday night in the presence of the Taoiseach referred to the fact that they had plans on paper for water and sewerage schemes.

Mr. Boland

Wait till next week and you can call her Deputy.

Mr. L'Estrange

Those were the words she used. She said: "We have plans on paper..." I want to say that "plans on paper" are the operative words. We in the local authorities are being asked to keep preparing plans, to have them published in the paper. As a matter of fact, Westmeath County Council have plans to spend £5 million and we can hardly get £5,000 from the Department of Local Government. We tried to get loans for repairing cottages and the Minister refused to sanction them. Even when we got a bank that would give it, the Minister refused to sanction it. I remember a few years ago when Deputy Blaney was Minister for Local Government, at the annual general meeting of county councils, he attacked us all the time on the ground that the county councils were not moving fast enough. They were not preparing enough schemes or submitting enough schemes to the Department. They submitted them. They got architects and engineers and they prepared schemes five or six years ago. They were submitted to the Minister, but instead of getting the go-ahead, the dead hand of Fianna Fáil has again descended on the water and sewerage installations and we are being told by the Department now to go back to the group schemes which they believe can be a cheaper way of doing the work and that they can be as suitable. We believe they are not. We think is it completely wrong for the Department of Local Government to do as they did a few years ago—encourage the various county councils to employ architects, engineers and consulting engineers to prepare those elaborate schemes and then to find that the papers have been put away in their cubby-holes to gather dust because the Minister has no money to give local authorities to go ahead with those schemes.

In my own county plans have been prepared for the past four or five years for Tyrellspass and Ballinacarriga water schemes. What did the Minister do this year? He asked us to prepare new priority lists. When they were prepared, we found that where we had plans ready and where the Tyrellspass and Ballinacarriga schemes were No. 2 or No. 3 on the list, they were now No. 17 or No. 19. There is no other convenient alternative for the Minister, when he has not got money to sanction existing schemes, when plans are prepared, than to pretend to local authorities and others that he is doing something by ordering the moving of the list of priorities which automatically shows that the schemes which are ready to go into operation are put back at the tailend of the list. This may be clever politics but it does not satisfy the needs of the people and we are not advancing as we should in that direction.

I also remember that there were grants for swimming pools and that the Minister for Local Government, when speaking a year or one and a half years ago at the opening of a swimming pool, congratulated the people of Longford for going ahead with providing a swimming pool. He pointed out, as did all the members of the local authority, the advantage of having many swimming pools in the different counties; they were of advantage to the health of our young boys and girls who could be taught how to swim and save lives. He spoke about their utility from a recreational point of view.

We are told in practically every county council that they prepared plans, that they were sent up and that they are now in the Minister's office. I think plans were sent up for well over 100 swimming pools but the latest figure given by the Minister indicates that there is only money to go ahead with five or six, or even three, as I have been told recently, in the whole country. The Minister is smiling. I want to ask him if there is any money to go ahead with the swimming pools for which the previous Minister for Local Government asked the local authorities very vigorously a couple of years ago to prepare plans and submit them. However, as Miss Nancy O'Neill said on television the other night, the plans for sewerage and water schemes are all prepared but that is no use to the people. We want to know from the Minister when they will be put into operation.

Plans are in the Minister's Department for sewerage and water schemes in respect of the whole of County Westmeath and, indeed, in respect of every county in Ireland. This could give work which we believe would keep the people in rural Ireland. Sewerage and water schemes for County Westmeath must be undertaken if we are to provide the people of rural Ireland with such amenities. God knows, they are paying long enough through rates and taxes for those amenities for other people. We do not want to see the people of rural Ireland relegated to the role of second-class citizens. I should like to challenge the Minister, before I sit down, to give the percentage of the plans for swimming pools which he is prepared to sanction and give the go-ahead to.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Labour Party support this Supplementary Estimate. The first priority is for better housing grants. A Deputy from my own county mentioned some time ago the number of foreigners who come in here. In West Cork we see those people coming along, buying a piece of land and erecting a house but we also have this other affluent section of the people who find it is not terribly difficult to provide the money to build a house.

We all know that building costs are escalating very much. They could be termed skyhigh at the present time. Deputy L'Estrange mentioned £3,400 as the figure given by the Department for the erection of a five-roomed house. In many places in West Cork, where they have not the same facilities as nearer Dublin, the price is much higher. I believe there should be some inquiry into house building costs. I know they vary very much throughout the country but there is no question that so far as private building is concerned at the present time, due to the scarcity of skilled operatives—many of them had to go out of the country some years past when the work was not here for them—house building is a very costly job. There are possibly other factors such as the cost of land, which might also need to be taken into account. I consider that there is an obligation on the Department to inquire into the cost of house building and to find out whether those costs are justified or not.

We all know it is very difficult to get capital for house building at present. This is particularly so so far as private house building, and to a lesser extent public house building is concerned. The grants given at present are quite inadequate. I know they were increased to £150 some three or four years ago and there was also an extra £150 given for a certain class of applicant, but we must take into account that costs in the meantime have soared far beyond that. A house that could be built for £3,000 in 1964 today costs about £4,200 or £4,300 and the increase would be around 35 per cent. I am basing those figures on my own part of the country with which I am conversant.

The Minister again, if private house building costs are not reduced, and it seems unlikely they will be, should address himself to the question of increasing the grants. I should like in particular to see an increase in so far as applicants who would qualify for local authority houses are concerned. I believe he should encourage people to provide their own houses if at all possible. It is much better to expend money by way of giving grants to people to provide their own houses rather than have local authorities providing houses for them. I am convinced of that. From every aspect it is much better to encourage people to provide their own houses. I know that much cannot be done without the aid of loans and grants. Loans are prohibitive at the present time, as 8 per cent per annum is a big price to pay for money and many people find it difficult to avail of local authority loans, and insurance company loans which are at a higher rate than local authority loans.

I have always admired the scheme in relation to reconstruction grants and I have admired the local authorities who have adopted the supplementary grants schemes because, undoubtedly, were it not for the grants available from the State and local authorities many of our houses would not be in the condition they are. A substantial number of our people have availed of, or are availing of, these reconstruction grants and trying to keep their houses habitable and up to reasonable standards. But, here again, at the present time there is this money problem. Costs are increasing and combined grants for reconstruction, irrespective of the work done, are at the figure of £280—£140 from the State and £140 from the county council. It is some years now since the reconstruction grants were increased by £20—from £120 to £140 by the State and I think the time is ripe now for another increase.

While I am inclined to agree that the percentage rate is reasonable at 66?, I think the maximum State grant payable should be moved up at least into the £200 bracket. In view of the fall in the value of money and the increased cost of reconstruction work, that is not an unreasonable figure.

Generally speaking, reconstruction grant applications are dealt with speedily, and, to a large extent, efficiently. There are very few complaints. I agree with the Department's adherence to ensuring that the work is carried out to a certain standard. There is no justification for payment of grants for sub-standard work and it is essential to have the work up to a reasonable standard.

You will, of course, meet some difficult cases. Every Deputy will have come across them and the Department's attitude is not very helpful. I am referring to the case where a person through lack of knowledge of the rules will commence work before the 15 years limit of the last grant has expired and the Department are not helpful here. That is a mean attitude. Where activities have been carried out in good faith and where the work has commenced mainly due to a lack of knowledge in so far as the regulations are concerned, the Department could be a little more broadminded than they are, particularly having regard to the limited number of cases that arise.

A broadminded attitude might be adopted in this regard but I must confess that there is little use in approaching the Minister to review cases like that. I have in mind the case of a widow in West Cork who lost £80—£40 from the State and £40 from the county council—because she commenced work a few months earlier than the 15 years limit. I am not making a case that there is no obligation on people to be conversant with the regulations. It is essential that people who apply for grants should get particulars and investigate the regulations in relation to grants. In view of the limited number of cases arising and the circumstances of the people concerned, it is amazing that the Department adopt the attitude they adopted in a number of these cases without any justification. I believe the regulations should be applied in a more flexible manner.

We in this Party would like to see, when the annual review of the Department comes before us, an increase in the rate of reconstruction grants. I think it is desirable that such an increase should come about without delay.

In so far as private water schemes and private sewerage schemes are concerned, like the reconstruction grants the work here is moving along smoothly. There is no great delay in dealing with the applications for grants approved and paid by the State and local authorities. But, here again, the question of an increase in the rate of grants arises. The present rate of £75 for water and sewerage in the case of individual applicants is inadequate and I think it should be increased in proportion to the rate of increases generally in costs in recent years.

There is the question of section 30 grants where the Department limits itself to the payment of £80 and in some cases a council will have to pay up to £400-£500. That is unfair on the part of the Department. Under section 30 of the Act, the State grant is £80 and I think that figure should be increased. We can get very little reconstruction work carried out for £80 and the type of people who benefit from such grants are those who are incapable of making any contribution towards the cost. The grants are available only to those whose financial circumstances prevent them from keeping their houses habitable through their own resources. The Department should help the local authorities who are implementing this scheme and relieve them of some of the burden. I have said already that there are sums of up to £400-£500 involved from the local authorities in some cases.

In so far as private work is concerned —reconstruction work, water and sewerage schemes—generally speaking, there is not much to complain about, but in the matter of public schemes, the Minister and everyone associated with the Department are at a dead stop. I could go over again the picture painted by Deputy L'Estrange. I do not know how many circulars the Department have sent out to housing and sanitary authorities. Had I known this debate was to take place I should have brought in, Sir, for your viewing, a circular showing a woman with two buckets. That was a special circular sent out by the Department to housing and sanitary authorities telling us that the day was gone when we had women bringing buckets of water from wells, that piped water supplies would be made available to all and sundry and that local authorities should go ahead and make their plans and set about them, particularly in the case of regional schemes.

We were being whipped in Cork, and I suppose the same circulars went out to all local authorities. What happened? Unfortunately, the story is a rather sad one. I will confine myself to portions of the West Cork area, to the electoral divisions of Cork county where the Western Committee of Cork County Council function as a housing and sanitary authority. What picture do we find? In response to these circulars, particularly those with the drawings, setting out the Department's recommendations in regard to the planning of schemes, we had the Clonakilty scheme. The Minister knows all about our schemes—he has received deputations on the matter.

The Clonakilty scheme was planned entirely in accordance with circulars or demands made by the Department. We embarked on sizeable expenditure to get it off the ground. The total cost to the county council from local revenue was £20,000. I had occasion to mention the scheme in the House on previous occasions but I wish to refer to it now once more because we may not have an opportunity again for some time. The council, in accordance with Departmental approval, sought tenders for the implementation of the scheme and we got competitive tenders from a wide range of leading contractors. It was the opinion of the council's technical advisers that the tenders were most competitive.

I have no idea what the cost would be to an individual contractor to submit a tender for a scheme whose cost would be in the region of half a million pounds. I am sure it would be a sizeable figure. However, we were quite satisfied with the pricing of the tenders. Then last February, the Department told us there was no money, that the tender would not be approved if we sent it alone. Without in actual words telling us that there was a lack of money, they confronted us with technical hitches of one kind or another and the whole scheme went by the board. That is the position up to date.

Either by way of question or on the Estimate, I indicated what the position was and told the House it arose because of the Department's negligence and asked that the £20,000 lost to the ratepayers of West Cork should be recouped by the Department. There has been evidence of gross neglect by the Department and I suggest now that the Minister gives us the green light for the implementation of this scheme without further delay.

Still driven by the Minister's circulars, we embarked on a second scheme, the Baltimore and Skibbereen regional scheme in which the cost has been estimated at £247,000. This is a most desirable scheme but there is no possibility of getting it off the ground because there is no money available. That scheme is at the tender stage. I realise that the Minister's problem is that he has to deal with the country as a whole, that schemes are flowing in to the Department from different parts of the country, sizeable schemes that will cost a great deal of money. The reason I am going into this is to show it is due to the neglect and lack of foresight of the Minister and the Department. They asked the local authorities to prepare the schemes. When we were preparing the Clonakilty regional scheme I happened to be chairman of the local committee and I anticipated that a scheme of that size would not be approved because the money would not be available. I appreciated that we should try to complete smaller schemes, piecemeal, and that submitting regional schemes in respect of which there was little likelihood of getting money was not the best way of setting about the provision of water supplies in the West Cork district. Unfortunately I have been proved correct. At that time the Department thought otherwise and asked us to send up regional schemes saying that was the most effective manner——

Mr. L'Estrange

For propaganda.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

——to have regional schemes executed. I would have agreed if money had been available. The result now is that in those areas people are without water supplies purely because of false impressions created by the Department. If that had not been the case, people in those areas would have embarked on private schemes for which private grants were available. To be quite candid, the Department made a major blunder in advocating the preparation of regional schemes at a time when money was not available. If that had not been done, many people waiting for water supplies would have carried out private schemes to supply their houses with water. In that way not only would they now have water but they would be able to avail of bonus grants for milk production available from the Department of Agriculture. The Department of Local Government should have been straightforward with the people and told them money was not available for larger schemes.

We have other schemes in West Cork. There is one scheme which will cost £80,000; there is a scheme for the Berehaven Peninsula which the Department are not inclined to approve; and there is a scheme for Crookhaven and Goleen which will come up in the not too distant future. I realise that West Cork is a relatively small part of the country but it is an important part and to carry out all the necessary schemes there would cost £1 million. I appreciate also that it is difficult for the Department to provide that kind of money. On the other hand, such schemes could be spread through a period of three or four years. In the meantime, the Department's blunder on the question of regional schemes prevented farmers from looking for private grants to satisfy their private water needs. The Minister has no one to blame but himself for the amount of criticism he has received. Is it not time to stop? Having made blunders, why continue to make them? Would it not be advisable for the Department to announce that there are £X available for such and such a county and to say that that is all there is available, all the Department can give?

We are told in the Dáil that the Government are spending a lot of money, that we have a lot of money, that the economy was never better and that we can provide all these amenities in a short period. We have Departmental technicians writing to local authorities saying: "We want your schemes now in order of priority." Then follows some technical hitch. If a private business firm were to carry on their business in that blundering manner, I am sure bankruptcy would not be far from its doors. The Department of Local Government are playing with public money. Unfortunately, local authorities have to pay, out of local revenue, out of rates, for a number of the Department's blunders.

It is imperative that I make these statements. What is happening in County Cork is, I think, happening all over the country. Errors have been made. We should learn by our mistakes and turn over a new leaf so far as pronouncements by the Department are concerned. For heaven's sake, do not send any more foolish circulars telling local authorities what they should do about housing, water supply services, sanitary services, and so on. Local authorities would be only too anxious to go ahead, if they had the money. I think I am correct in blaming the Department for the many blunders they have made up to the present. It is a major problem to meet the financial demands by the different local authorities so far as housing, water, and sanitary services are concerned.

Some time back, we heard a lot about group schemes, but they are dying slowly. In the not too distant future, these group schemes will be a thing of the past. We have some of them down in West Cork. For one reason or another, they are delayed from month to month and from year to year. We have one out in the Goleen district, one at Ballydehob and one in the Berehaven Peninsula as well as some small ones. The money was collected some three or four years ago, but nothing has happened except the exchange of letters. Some people are fed up with these group schemes, but I shall not labour that point now because I think they are dying. I would make a special plea to the Minister and to the Department to try to implement the ones where the applications have been made and the money has been collected, or else to make a public announcement that the group schemes have been abandoned and to let the people avail of the private grants.

I think it is no harm to say that any person anxious about a water supply would be well advised to avail of the private grants, where the application is dealt with quite efficiently and without delay. There is a vast difference between the Department's dealing with public and private schemes: public schemes are completely hopeless.

I should like the Minister to give some indication of what the position will be for next year. Local authorities should be given more latitude in the expenditure of money on housing and sanitary schemes. Instead of all the delays involved in protracted correspondence with the Department, it would be a better day for the country if, instead of the present position, whereby every scheme has to be sent to the Department for sanction, more confidence were reposed in the local authority and a certain amount of money were given to the local authority for expenditure on schemes which they consider the more meritorious, they having the job of selecting the schemes and carrying out the work. The men on the spot, the local men, are better judges of the position in so far as the selection of schemes is concerned than people far from the scene in Dublin. Of course, the Department is entitled to examine a scheme to ensure that everything is in order, but at present they are not giving sufficient authority and power to the local authorities in regard to housing and sanitary services. If more authority were given to them in relation to such schemes, I think it would be to the general benefit of all.

This is just a Supplementary Estimate to tide things over for the few remaining weeks of this financial year. I shall conclude by expressing the hope that the Minister and the Department will do me the courtesy of taking heed of the advice I have given so that the Department will work more swiftly than it has worked in the past.

Mr. J. O'Leary

I welcome this Supplementary Estimate for the provision of additional moneys for housing and water supplies. I congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this Supplementary Estimate. It is a favourable pointer to the ever-increasing standard of living of our people that the allocation for new house grants has increased by approximately 50 per cent over a ten-month period. It is surely a fair barometer of the progress being made and of the amount of development being carried out in the country when 6,571 persons are in a position to commence work on the construction of private dwellings during a period of ten months.

I am secretary of a public utility society. I must say that I have found the Housing Grants Section of the Department of Local Government to be one of the most co-operative sections in any Department. It apears, from the present trend, that the number of private houses which will be built next year will definitely create an all-time record.

It is also gratifying to note that there is an increase in the allocations for housing reconstruction grants. In a ten-month period, there is an increase of approximately 25 per cent in the number of reconstruction grants being allocated. I sincerely hope—and it is evident. I think—that these grants are providing a good incentive to preserve existing housing accommodation, thus cutting out the need for the replacement of these houses in the immediate years ahead.

I welcome the scheme of essential repair grants for houses in rural areas. We all know only too well that many of these houses which were occupied by elderly persons were allowed to fall into disrepair which resulted in local authorities being forced to build cottages for the occupants. By availing of these grants, the local authorities can now improve and preserve these houses to the extent necessary to maintain them for the lifetime of the occupants and thus save the ratepayer and taxpayer from having to provide a considerable sum of money for houses in remote rural areas which, undoubtedly, in time, would become unoccupied. When the scheme came into operation in 1963-64, only 37 grants were allocated. It is good to note that there were 1,040 grants allocated for the ten months to 31st January last.

I would ask the Minister to give very special consideration to applications for reconstruction grants in respect of houses roofed with corrugated iron. I understand that at the moment it is not the policy to make reconstruction grants in such cases. I have come across a few cases where the owners have found it impossible to use any other type of roofing material by reason of the fact that the structure was not sufficiently strong or sound to carry any other type of roof. I have come across one or two cases where applications for grants for extensions to dwellings were refused because of the fact that the plan provided for a corrugated iron roof, even though the roof of the existing dwelling consisted of corrugated iron. Very special consideration should be given to such applications, bearing in mind the age of the structure, the type of material in the existing structure and the probable length of time the dwelling will be used for human habitation.

I am a firm believer in group water schemes. It would be most unfair to the taxpayer and the ratepayer to proceed with the regional schemes as originally planned. I understand that there are schemes under consideration the cost of which would be approximately £24 million or £25 million. Imagine the impact that would have on the rates and on taxation. Deputy L'Estrange stated earlier in the debate that Westmeath County Council had proposals for £5 million worth of regional schemes.

Mr. L'Estrange

A different type of plan.

Mr. J. O'Leary

The ratepayers of Westmeath, apart altogether from the taxpayers in the county, would be in for an awful shock at the next Estimates meeting if these schemes were carried out.

Mr. L'Estrange

We were told to do that.

Mr. J. O'Leary

I would strongly advise any local authority to proceed with group water schemes. I have seen cases in Kerry where local farmers and others were very enthusiastic about regional schemes but on learning the cost and the impact on rates and taxation, they began to favour the group, co-operative, scheme. There is a great deal of talk about the need for co-operation among farmers, various organisations and various sections of the community. It is a grand thing to see ten, 20, 30 or 40 householders meeting in a local hall working out with the departmental inspector the proposals for a group scheme, estimating the cost and working out the practical details, such as how the necessary machinery can be hired at the cheapest possible cost, and making arrangements for the carrying out of the work at a time when most voluntary labour can be provided.

Mr. L'Estrange

I agree with the Deputy but the Minister lambasted us a few years ago for not submitting these schemes.

Mr. Boland

Do not talk nonsense.

Mr. L'Estrange

We owe £50,000 to architects and quantity surveyors as a result. Certainly Deputy Blaney did on numerous occasions.

Mr. Boland

It is not wasted.

Mr. L'Estrange

A waste of money?

Mr. Boland

I said it is not a waste of money.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Of course, it is waste of money. Deputy O'Leary is talking nonsense unless they are operating differently in Kerry.

Mr. J. O'Leary

The money spent to date in designing regional schemes was money well spent. Our experience in Kerry is that when a group decide to carry out a scheme, they need only consult with the senior engineers in the county council who can consult the plans for the regional scheme and they can learn from that plan the source of supply and can work out to £1 what it will cost. The money that has been spent in planning regional schemes is money well spent. That is my experience.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

How many group schemes are in operation at the present time in County Kerry?

Mr. J. O'Leary

The Deputy would be surprised.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Possibly there are plans. There may be plans with the Department. In West Cork there are applications for group schemes but nothing is happening about them. We have been waiting year after year.

Mr. L'Estrange

They are all on paper, as Miss Nancy O'Neill told us, but she did not say what type of paper.

Mr. J. O'Leary

Good progress is being made with group schemes in Kerry. A few schemes are going ahead and major schemes are being planned. The Local Government inspector in Kerry is so busy at the moment working with various groups who intend to carry out these schemes that I am asking the Minister to provide a second officer for Kerry. Probably, there should be an additional allocation of money in certain circumstances, where necessary, when a group run into difficulty as a result of having to remove rock or meet with other difficulty in the terrain through which the pipeline must be extended. I would strongly recommend that special consideration be given to applications for additional money in such cases.

When the Minister is considering applications for sanction for loans for water schemes and when priorities are being decided, he should give very special consideration to proposals submitted by a county council for the extension of existing county council schemes to a point from which a group could take over and also to proposals from a county council for the extension of an existing scheme and the building of a reservoir from which a group could take supply.

I will conclude by reiterating my firm belief in group schemes. It is a grand thing to see the co-operation that is involved and to see private enterprise working out the details for the most economical execution of the scheme.

In regard to the proposal to provide additional money for swimming pools, I would urge the Minister to be very careful when considering applications for grants for swimming pools in towns where the local authorities have not lived up to their obligations in regard to houses. I know at least one urban district council which has not lived up to its obligations in this regard. I would also ask the Minister to ensure, before providing a grant, that adequate provision will be made for the maintenance of the pool after its erection.

Mr. Boland

I hardly thought that in this debate again we would have to deal with such a ridiculous remark as that made by Deputy L'Estrange, that the dead hand of Fianna Fáil descended on housebuilding in 1957-58. I did not think that Deputy L'Estrange, even now that it is 11 years since the Coalition Government brought this country's economy to such a state of disaster, would have the effrontery to expect the people to forget that and to expect to be able to get away with the suggestion that what happened in 1957-58 was that the dead hand of Fianna Fáil descended on housebuilding. Nobody knows better than Deputy L'Estrange what happened at that time. Nobody knows better than he that it was because of the irresponsibility of the Coalition Government at that time that the country's economy collapsed——

Mr. L'Estrange

Bunkum.

Mr. Boland

——and the first thing to be hit was the building industry. Nobody knows better than Deputy L'Estrange and his colleagues that in the winter of 1956-57, not only was it not possible to allow any new scheme to go ahead but the Government were not able to provide local authorities with funds to honour their existing commitments.

Mr. L'Estrange

That is all bunkum, and you know it.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Minister was not a Member of the House at that time.

Mr. Boland

That is correct, but I was in a body more intimately concerned with this. I was a member of Dublin Corporation at the time and I remember the winter of 1956-57 when the members of Dublin Corporation were afraid they were going to spend the Christmas in jail because they had not got the money to pay contractors for work done.

Mr. L'Estrange

The houses were not falling down on them as they have been for the past four or five years.

Mr. Boland

They could not get it because the guarantee of the Coalition Government was not worth the paper it was written on.

Mr. L'Estrange

Your guarantee was not worth much two years ago.

Mr. Boland

It was Deputy L'Estrange who referred to this period and if he wants to refer to two years ago, we can refer to that too. Two years ago a similar type of economic difficulty developed but because there was a different Government in office, it was dealt with. The Government then had the courage to deal with it.

Mr. L'Estrange

So had the other Government, and they dealt with it.

Mr. Boland

The Government were able to make the necessary decisions and steer the country through that period, whereas the Coalition Government at the particular time to which Deputy L'Estrange referred were not able to make decisions and they had not the courage to implement the necessary measures to deal with the situation and the economic circumstances that developed.

Mr. L'Estrange

They made decisions and dealt with the situation.

Mr. Boland

The result was that we had this collapse, that the building industry practically disappeared overnight——

Mr. L'Estrange

Moonshine.

Mr. Boland

——and people who had never known a day's unemployment had to emigrate and a lot of firms became bankrupt and it took a number of years to get things moving again.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister is telling us about what is happening at present.

Mr. Boland

We have reached the position in which the target which the Government set themselves almost four years ago to reach by 1970 has in fact been reached this year, has been exceeded this year, two years ahead of schedule. That is a record of this Government's achievements. It is because they have taken good care of the country's economy, unlike the Coalition Government, and what is annoying Deputy L'Estrange is that the people know this.

Mr. L'Estrange

You will see whether or not they know it tomorrow.

Mr. Boland

I well remember the time to which Deputy L'Estrange referred when my predecessor, Deputy Blaney, was exhorting the county councils to make a move in this respect, Deputy L'Estrange described it as attacking them for slowness. Maybe it was, but the fact is that one of the difficulties which had to be surmounted was to get the local authorities to regain momentum in regard to housing activities generally. That has always been a difficult thing to do when local authorities lose confidence, as they did in 1956-57. It is always difficult to get them going again because their whole machinery goes out of operation and they are thinking on different lines completely. However, that has been changed and the target of 12,000 to 14,000 houses a year has been reached this year when we will have over 12,000 houses completed. Deputy L'Estrange showed his contempt for facts when he represented that the normal grants available in 1948 were £300 from the State and £300 supplementary grant.

Mr. L'Estrange

I said they were introduced by the Government in power from 1948 to 1951.

Mr. Boland

As Deputy L'Estrange knows, the £300 only applies to certain special cases where water and sewerage are being installed and as he should know but perhaps does not, I am being charitable in saying that he probably does not know——

Mr. L'Estrange

I know quite well.

Mr. Boland

——the supplementary grants at that time were available on a very limited basis indeed and were related to scales of valuations and it was only in the 1952 Act that their scope was widened to what they are at present.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Inter-Party Government introduced the second grant and the Minister cannot deny it.

Mr. Boland

These supplementary grants were only in respect of houses with a valuation of up to about £8.

Mr. L'Estrange

You did not improve on them when it was costing twice as much——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputy L'Estrange allow the Minister to proceed without interruption?

Mr. L'Estrange

We would like facts on both sides.

Mr. Boland

In regard to that, Deputy Murphy did represent that the grants were inadequate and advocated that they should be increased. I do not say that there is not a case for some increase in these grants but it is a fact that the level of grants at present is obviously not inhibiting private housebuilding in any way. On the contrary, we have reached a very high level of private housebuilding, as I have already pointed out, and although each year we are able to provide a record amount of money for this purpose, there is never any difficulty in getting it all taken up. As Deputies can see, this year we have had to come back for a Supplementary Estimate in order to provide all the money needed for this purpose, so that, whatever case may be made for increasing the grants, it certainly cannot be said that the present level is inhibiting private housebuilding. It is obviously desirable to try to ensure as far as possible that these grants go for the provision of low-cost housing and we should not, therefore, do anything that might conceivably have the effect of inducing a further rise in housing costs.

Both Deputy L'Estrange and Deputy Murphy returned, rather surprisingly, I think, to this charge that there was no money available for water and sewerage schemes.

Mr. L'Estrange

There is not.

Mr. Boland

Plans have been submitted to my Department for regional water schemes, the total cost of which would be something in the region of £42 million. There is not sufficient money available naturally to carry out all these schemes at once. Neither is there sufficient capacity in the industry. I do not think any reasonable person would expect money of that order to be made available all at once. Every year the Government assesses how much it will be possible for the community to provide for the State's capital purposes and designs the State's capital programme for the utilisation of that money. This year, over 25 per cent of the total amount was allocated to the different purposes of my Department. The major portion of that was for housing. A substantial portion was for regional water schemes.

Deputy L'Estrange and Deputy Murphy have been trying to represent that there is no activity in this regard and that the scheme was a failure and should never have been brought in. The fact is, as I mentioned in replying to the debate on my Estimate, regional water schemes in progress or constructed represent a total value of £9 million and, this year, I have been able to authorise the commencement of further schemes to the value of £3.7 million. That is not "no money". It is a considerable amount of money allocated in any one year. If Deputies would cast their minds back they might remember that I detailed the schemes authorised to start this year in my reply to the debate on my Estimate. It so happens I have that list here and, in view of the fact that neither Deputy L'Estrange nor Deputy Murphy is apparently aware of these schemes and have practically invited me to give them this information all over again, I must admit I am tempted to put it on the record again. However, it is available in volume 232, columns 203 to 217 of the Official Report. There Deputies will find a list of the works authorised to proceed this year. That controverts the case made by both Deputy L'Estrange and Deputy Murphy.

There is no question whatsoever of me or my predecessor pretending that money for this, or any other purpose, is available or could possibly be available in unlimited supply. What I do say is, and this I can substantiate, that it is available in ever-increasing amounts and that is because of the successful and prudent handling of the country's economy by the present Government. The fact that already £9 million has been spent and a further £3.7 million is due to be spent is evidence of substantial progress. It is progress of which I, as Minister for Local Government, and the Government are proud. It represents substantial improvements in living conditions over a large part of the country. This is one of the ways in which the present Government demonstrate their appreciation of the fact that it is a fundamental duty of the Government not only to increase the capacity of the community to provide sufficient finance to increase production but also to ensure that that increasing prosperity is utilised for the improvement of conditions in the country as a whole.

With regard to the circular from my Department requesting local authorities to place regional water schemes in order of priority and to identify the most urgent sections of particular schemes. I want to point out that it is the local authority and not my Department who decide the order of priority. The local authorities were requested to do this themselves.

Mr. L'Estrange

I beg to differ from the Minister. The Minister put them under certain headings and they had to be sent back under certain headings. That is completely wrong.

Mr. Boland

Local authorities were requested to do this so that my Department would be able to make an allocation of money in accordance with the likely benefit that would accrue to the community.

Mr. L'Estrange

The Minister put the first heading where we were about to build new houses and, where we had plans prepared, they were put last.

Mr. Boland

I quite appreciate that Deputy L'Estrange would not put the provision of new houses in first place.

Mr. L'Estrange

We built more houses in one year when the inter-Party Government were in power than were built in the last six years.

Mr. Boland

Probably Deputy L'Estrange does not like to have to base his arguments on falsehoods. He would like to be able to say that houses are not being provided. He would like to be able to say that truthfully, but he cannot say it truthfully, and I am quite sure that, if he had his way, he would not place the building of houses first in the priority list. But I would.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Boland

We have been able to make a spectacular advance in the building of houses, both private and local authority, and we have been able to maintain building at a high level over a long period. We have been able to do that because we put housing first in the priority list.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Boland

It is because we appreciate the importance of housing that we were able to keep the building industry going during a period of economic difficulty.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Boland

We did not let it collapse like the Coalition Government did when they were in office.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Boland

We know we will have the task of presiding over house-building for a number of years to come.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think Deputy L'Estrange should allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

Mr. Boland

We will have that responsibility for a long time to come.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Boland

We have incontrovertible evidence that, provided the system of election is not changed, we will have at least a further five years responsibility after 1970.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would remind Deputy L'Estrange that we are dealing with housing and we must keep to housing.

Mr. Boland

Deputy L'Estrange got his opportunity to raise the matter, had he wanted to.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Boland

This is more of Deputy L'Estrange's fertile imagination.

Mr. L'Estrange

I challenge the Minister to get the Attorney General to investigate it and lay the papers before the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is replying.

Mr. Boland

This Estimate has nothing to do with that. I am dealing with the provision of housing and water and sewerage. I do not know what is rambling through Deputy L'Estrange's mind. What I am dealing with are his comments when he was more or less in order.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

What the Minister said gave rise to this remark about the law case on Thursday last.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister cannot conclude the debate if these interruptions continue.

Mr. Boland

As I said, these priorities will be decided by the local authorities, and my opinion is that this was a more sensible approach for me to adopt. In view of the fact that we had schemes totalling £42 million submitted, it was better to try to find out from the local authorities which schemes or which parts of schemes were most important so that we could allocate money in a sensible way. As I said, not alone would it not be possible financially to embark on all these things together but it would not be realistic from the point of view of the capacity of the industry either. I do not know whether or not I should deal with Deputy L'Estrange's comments on the by-election broadcast of the future Deputy O'Neill or whether I should leave it for Miss O'Neill to deal with herself next week.

Mr. L'Estrange

Surely the Minister would not impose such an ordeal on her? There is no chivalry left.

Mr. Boland

She should be able to deal with this next week, but I should like to point out to Deputy L'Estrange that before embarking on any water or sewerage schemes, it is, first of all, necessary to put the plans on paper, and any plans that have been put on paper are not wasted. They are available there to be started and to be carried out according as the capacity of the economy to provide the money increases, and as Deputy L'Estrange knows to his chagrin, that is something that is increasing every year.

Deputy Murphy at least let us know his real opinion of this, that is, that we should not have started these regional schemes at all, that instead we should have concentrated on group schemes. I made it clear before that in so far as this question of water supply is concerned that it is a three-pronged effort and that none of the three aspects is exclusive of the others, that work to make piped water available to every home in the land is being carried out in three separate ways; one is, and only one is, the regional scheme; another is the group water scheme; and then there is the scheme of grants for the provision of private water supplies. Deputy Murphy says that the group schemes are dying out. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was never more activity in regard to group water schemes.

Mr. L'Estrange

Because they are on paper and they were not completed in the last few years.

Mr. Boland

In February last there was a general review of schemes in Cork County which resulted in 155 grants being allocated and 181 being certified for payment. In Cork 34 schemes for 462 houses have been completed; 32 schemes for 484 houses have been designed; and 44 schemes for 700 houses are in various stages of completion. Group grants for the whole country are the biggest ever this year.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Could the Minister explain the delay from the time a scheme is designed and all the difficulties are overcome to the actual commencement of the work? Why does it take years?

Mr. Boland

Deputy Murphy says one minute that group schemes are dying out; the next minute he says that regional schemes should never have been started——

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Minister is codding the people.

Mr. Boland

On the other hand, he says he was advising people to go ahead with private schemes. I do not know if Deputy Murphy knows what he is talking about at all. The Department is actively promoting group water supply schemes and with some considerable success. The engineering staff engaged on the work has been considerably augmented and, as I said, with the co-operation of the county councils significant progress has been made. In the calendar year ended 31st December, 1967, grants for the installation of water in 2,328 houses were approved; grants were paid in respect of 1,747 houses; and designs for group schemes for 2,641 houses were received. Therefore, there is considerable activity with regard to group schemes.

The only other point I want to deal with is the one raised by Deputy J. O'Leary with regard to reconstruction grants, the allowing of corrugated iron roofs. I thought that the case he made seemed to be mainly concerned with the type of structure which is more appropriately dealt with under the essential repair grant schemes rather than reconstruction grant schemes, and, of course, in those cases corrugated iron can be allowed in suitable cases. Deputy L'Estrange referred to the question of swimming pools and he picked some figure out of his head or out of the air in saying that proposals had been submitted for 100 swimming pools.

Mr. L'Estrange

Can the Minister say how many there were?

Mr. Boland

As far as I remember, it is around 36; certainly it is under 40.

Mr. L'Estrange

How many is the Minister sanctioning?

Mr. Boland

It is more than three.

Mr. L'Estrange

It is not five?

Mr. Boland

No, it is more than five. It is nine. It is a substantial number. I have indicated that I was prepared to sanction pools for Dublin Corporation; these are likely to be two in number. Others are for Tuam, Ennis-corthy, Ennis, Tipperary town, Carlow, Ballinasloe, and Naas.

Mr. L'Estrange

Is the Minister leaving out Wicklow and Clare?

Mr. Boland

I have devoted a considerable portion of my time to Wicklow——

Mr. L'Estrange

You might pull the rabbit out of the hat tonight yet.

Mr. Boland

I can assure Deputy L'Estrange I have not had any part in instigating a proposal for a swimming pool in Wicklow. I notice in the papers that there are incipient proposals for a swimming pool there.

Mr. L'Estrange

And they have a chance of a grant in ten years.

Mr. Boland

I do not know when they have a chance. The amount of money that can be provided for this purpose is not unlimited. I never said it was, and neither did my predecessor. These pools cannot be built without proposals being submitted and without local committees being organised. It is quite a desirable and commendable feature of the whole scheme that some local finance is required. The raising of the local finance for this purpose is an indication of the depth and extent of the desire of the local people for this amenity. We will provide money for these amenities on an increasing scale, according as time goes on and as our economic policy develops the capacity of the community to provide the money.

Apart from these little points Deputies have raised, I want to thank the House for being so co-operative in agreeing to make this extra money available for the essential purposes of my Department. Indeed, I may say the House is generally co-operative in voting money. It is only when it is a question of raising it that we find the attitude is completely and diametrically opposed.

Question put and agreed to.