During the discussion on this Estimate, the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Dillon, went off at a tangent in regard to the matter of rural water supplies. He indicated that it seems to be the policy of my Department and the Government to bring water mains along every main road, that that was foolish, that it would leave a blister on the ratepayers of very formidable dimensions, and more or less took me to task for this policy or alleged policy of doing something in a daft way. I had hoped at this stage that this question of confusion about the methods we hope to adopt to give water supplies to the people of rural Ireland had been laid to rest, but whether it was laid to rest or not, it is being resurrected in no uncertain terms by the Leader of the main Opposition Party.
I am rather afraid that the manner in which he raises it may be taken as an indication that he and his Party are against rural water supplies. This has not been made very clear by them up to the moment and in fact if that is the intention of Deputy Dillon, I do not believe the majority of his Party are behind him. I believe that all Parties in this House are now very definitely interested in providing piped water to the residents of rural Ireland, not only to improve their living conditions but also as an aid in improving their economics, to help them to increase production on their farms and farmyards, to assist them in producing better, healthier livestock through an adequate supply of pure water.
All of us are convinced this is something that is necessary and good and will come whether the members of this particular Dáil will it or not. No attempts to confuse the issue, as Deputy Dillon endeavoured to do here by making statements for which there is no basis, in fact, can stop the people of rural Ireland being supplied with decent water supplies. If people demand services in democracies such as ours, so surely will they get these services in due course.
There should not at this stage be any question or doubt in the mind of Deputy Dillon or in the mind of any other member of this House as to what the approach of the Government is in this matter. It is threefold, a combination of regional schemes, group schemes and private installations. There is no over-emphasis on any one type as against another. They all can play a very useful part in the overall supply of water in the years ahead and to go out on a limb and say that one particular type of scheme can solve the entire problem of rural water supplies is to talk a lot of nonsense, and those who said so must realise they are talking nonsense.
On the other hand, to suggest that I as Minister for Local Government have put myself out on a limb and that I am advocating, regardless of cost, the extension of regional schemes and piped lines along every road in the country, is utter nonsense. I can only guess what the motives behind these statements are but I shall not weary the House giving my interpretation of what underlies such statements, which are only confusing the people in the country who desire the services, who need them and who ultimately will get them.
Let me reiterate that our approach is a three-pronged attack, in combination with the local authorities, in each region throughout the country. It is therefore necessary, lest there still might remain any confusion in the minds of any persons concerned in this matter, that the local authorities are the unifying influence and in order to be in a position to give their assistance and direction where they will serve the best purpose, it has been necessary for them as a first step to make a complete survey of their functional areas to find out their sources of supply, where the population is located and in what numbers, how gravity-fed regional schemes would suit and whether they would be economical. It is only when they have done that that they will be in a position to indicate to certain areas that a public scheme will not come their way and it is at that stage that our local authority members and other public spirited people can advocate and encourage alternative methods of providing water that would not otherwise be available to them because of costs or other technical reasons. Even in cases where regional schemes or group schemes are not applicable, there will be, as instanced by a number of Deputies, individual cases where neither group nor regional scheme can economically serve and in those cases, there is provision for individual installations which are catered for jointly by grants from the Exchequer and supplementary local authority grants.
That is our approach, the only sane approach to this very big problem, to a very necessary and desirable undertaking to provide piped water for the greatest possible number of people in the shortest possible time. It is estimated that from 1959, when I introduced the new and improved grants for water schemes of all types, about £24,000,000 will fall to be spent in the ten-year period. If we compare that figure, all of which will be directed to serve people in county health districts who at the moment have no supplies available to them, public or private, with what was provided in the past from 1925 onwards, we will find that in money values of today, we would have a figure of £8,000,000 spread over these past 35 years which either has been paid or is now being paid by county health district ratepayers who themselves in most cases have derived no benefit whatsoever.
We are asking that the people today, no matter where they may live, should, through some one or other of the three schemes in operation at present, be given the benefit of a piped water supply. They will be asked to pay their share by way of rates but a lesser share than they have ever been called upon to pay in the past in respect of any schemes prior to 1959. The vast majority of our county health district people have been paying substantial money in their rates during the years for schemes given to towns which were unincorporated—towns which were part of the county health district. They have been getting water schemes over the years and quite a considerable amount of money has been spent on them and nobody has cried "halt" in that matter. What we should recall is that the other residents in the rural parts of these county health districts in which these unincorporated towns are located have, in fact, been contributing towards a supply of water to these towns and getting no benefit themselves.
It seems near-madness to me when I hear people saying that the ratepayers in rural Ireland should not be called upon to pay, and will not face up to paying, for water for themselves, when, in fact, they have been paying for water for others for generations. There was never a word or a voice raised against that procedure. We should all get on to this matter together and stop trying to confuse the issue and recognise what I have already said, that piped water will come to rural Ireland, whether the members of this House will it or not. It is not a matter that our people are going to do without forever. They have done without it long enough and have paid for others at the same time. The time has arrived when that position is changing and nothing that anybody can say to confuse the issue will stop the progress now being made. They can, by their confusing talk, make it more difficult for proper schemes to be planned and inaugurated in these districts throughout the country.
Having said that, I would ask for the co-operation of all the members of this House and of the local authorities who are already co-operating to get on with the very vital job of providing a piped water supply for our people, in whatever form may be best suited and most economic. In those circumstances, let us lay to rest these confusing statements which can do no good but can only retard and slow down the progress that can be made in the years that lie ahead.
A number of small matters were raised in relation to this water supply programme by Deputy McQuillan and others. One comes to my mind immediately. Deputy McQuillan referred to the lack of liaison between local authorities and individuals who are interested either in organised group schemes or, indeed, who know what is available to them by way of individual schemes. I should like to point out that as long ago as March, 1961, I indicated by way of circular, which referred to many other matters on this whole question, to local authorities that they should then appoint special liaison officers—and many of them have done so since—to deal with this very matter. If Deputy McQuillan's experience in his county is that such is not the case, then I suggest to him he should take the matter up with his local authority. He has the backing of myself and the Department in our advocacy of this very system. If we are to get the best and most economic use of whatever money we spend on these various schemes, I believe it is essential that we should have proper liaison between the local authorities and the people in their areas.
Then there was an argument put up by another Deputy—Deputy Hogan— that there will be certain people in the country who will never get a water supply. Quite candidly, there may be some in the country who may never avail of a water supply but I cannot conceive of anyone in this country in such a position, due to the topography of the country, as never to get a supply.
The Deputy went on to elaborate on that argument, using the argument as a fact, which I do not think it is, that such people then would be expected to pay for the water supply of the others who would get the supply. He reckoned that the numbers of these people would run to about 15 per cent. of the rural population and that, therefore, it would be completely unfair that 15 per cent of the population, who he alleges cannot ever have the water supply, should continue to pay by way of rate charges and otherwise for the benefits accruing to the 85 per cent. who he agrees will get a water supply. These people in these isolated areas can avail, and many of them have availed and are availing, of the private grants from my Department and the local authorities. What Deputy Hogan and others should take to heart is that the moneys have been supplied from the Exchequer and from the rates. Therefore, if there are these individual isolated cases, as there must be, they are not, in fact, paying for a water supply for others and getting no benefit themselves.
They have grants available to them. They are subscribed by the rates and the central Exchequer just as all the moneys which go to other schemes are supplied. They are participating and will participate in the benefits on an individual basis made possible for them by grants from the central authority and the local rates, just as a regional scheme would be supplied by way of subsidy from the Government and contributions from the rates or a group scheme on the basis of a number coming together and getting in bulk the grants I mentioned. It is quite a fallacy, therefore, to talk about this position arising, of 15 per cent. of our people being driven into that situation.
Whilst on this subject, there is no harm in pointing out that there are other services, indeed, where it is true that people contribute substantially who cannot ever and will never get any benefit whatsoever from those schemes. Take, for instance, the case of the farming community—the over £50 valuation people. They contribute, for instance, to the health charges in a county. Yet they themselves must provide their own health services and pay for them. Those same people and many others, not quite as well off, possibly, as the £50 valuation people, contribute towards the cost of providing houses for the less well-off in the community. Yet those people, when they want a house, must build their own house. Nobody objected to that. In fact, it is commonly and fully acknowledged by all that this is a principle which is good in itself and the end product is necessary to the general wellbeing of our community.
Therefore if there should be any basis—even one per cent, never mind 15 per cent—for Deputy Hogan's argument, there are parallels right through our entire local services where this has been and is being done at the moment and nobody has really objected in principle. So why make a song and dance about this alleged situation which may never happen? It may happen but it need not happen. There will be facilities available for everybody to participate in these rural-water supplies, whether on an individual, a group or a regional basis.
Deputy Esmonde mentioned a reduction in the size of pipes installed some years ago in his constituency. The reduction in size, which, he says, was insisted upon by the Department of Local Government on the basis of saving £2,000 or £3,000, has now left a situation wherein, to improve that scheme and to bring it up to the size required for to-day's needs an additional cost of £33,000, is involved. I do not know about the actual figures but I do go so far as to say that I do not disagree that that may have happened in the past.
In his further arguments. Deputy Esmonde advocated that our schemes in the future should be ambitious enough to provide for future needs and future extended needs. With that, I fully agree. In fact, that is the manner in which our technical people who examine plans and proposals to-day approach all schemes sent to the Department.
I entirely agree with Deputy Esmonde and with anybody else with a like view that a water scheme is not something you put in to-day, just for to-day's needs. To satisfy only to-day's needs is not enough. When we are laying down pipes at very considerable cost, it does not cost so very much more to have the pipes slightly bigger than what is immediately needed, with a view to expansion and a greater use of water in the future. In that way, Deputy Esmonde and all members of the House may rest assured that if such were the case in the past, it will not be the case in the future. We are taking note of the development and the expected growth in the use of water, no matter where it may be provided for, and, in making provision for it, we have regard to pipe sizes so that this type of development will not take place.
Another matter quoted here by a couple of Deputies—again, Deputy Jones and Deputy Hogan from South Tipperary—was in reference to what I am alleged to have said about 2/-being the maximum amount that might fall to be met by rates in relation to water. This figure of 2/- to which I referred was the estimated average ultimate increase on the rates. Seventeen counties where programmes have been adopted to date bear out that the average of 2/- is not too far off the mark because that average on the programmes of the 17 counties submitted and adopted so far does work out at about 2/- in the £.
It is true that Deputy Hogan's county—Tipperary—will prove to have the highest rate charge probably of all counties. It will be higher, but I think nobody will appreciate more readily and more fully than the people of the rural parts of Tipperary that even though the impact may be high it will be well worth while because I think no county of its size in the country has had the same difficulties about procuring water supplies as Tipperary. It follows that no people in any county will more appreciate a water supply. Therefore if the charge may be the highest in the country, I do not think it will be complained of quite as much as it might be in some other counties where water has not been so scarce.
