Committee on Finance. - Vote 26: Local Government. – Dáil Éireann (19th Dáil) – Thursday, 16 Mar 1972

Committee on Finance. - Vote 26: Local Government.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Molloy)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,763,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st day of March, 1972, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Local Government, including grants to Local Authorities, Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing and Miscellaneous Schemes and Grants including a grant-in-aid.

The text of the Supplementary Estimate, as circulated, comprises seven items.

The first is a sum of £123,000, which is mainly to meet the cost of approved pay increases for various grades and also the first phase of the 13th round. Fees to the consultants appointed to carry out a study of local authority staff structure cost £20,000 from the current year's Vote against a total provision of £13,000 for all consultants.

A sum of £32,700 is required under subhead B to meet increases in subsistence allowances and mileage rates approved subsequent to the preparation of the original Estimate and also more travelling claims of additional outdoor officers necessitated by the increasing activities of the Department.

Due to the more rapid submission and processing of claims for housing subsidy, arising out of the expanded local authority building programme of recent years, the total sum maturing for payment to various county councils, borough corporations and urban district councils under subhead E.1 during the current financial year, will amount to £5,892,000, i.e. £700,000 above the voted provision of £5,192,000.

The voted provision for housing grants under subhead E.2 for the year 1971-72 was £3,900,000. This sum has proved inadequate to meet the commitments arising during the year, because of the record level of private building. To discharge claims arising before 31st March, 1972, a supplementary sum of £600,000 is now being sought.

Deputies will be glad to know that these sums are helping to finance the record number of new private and local authority houses which will be completed in this financial year. So far as we can estimate now, completions will exceed 15,500 houses.

Within this total, the Housing Act, 1970, is achieving the desired results. Grant-aided work has increased and builders are concentrating on providing the more modest sized house for which the largest rate of normal grant, £325, is payable.

The voted provision in subhead F for grants and contributions for the installation of private water supplies and sewerage in houses for the year 1971-72 was £750,000. This amount will not meet the claims maturing for payment in the year. To discharge these claims a supplementary sum of £170,000 is being sought.

Activity under this scheme of grants has shown a steady upward trend in the past four years. Last year a record of almost 11,000 grants were paid and the indications are that the current year's output will exceed that. Within this scheme, grants are paid for the provision of group water supplies. Output under these schemes increased by approximately 300 per cent in the four year period ended 31st March, 1971. Last year itself showed a record output and this year's output will be even higher.

The amount originally provided in subhead F for State contributions to loan charges incurred by local authorities on sanitary services works was £1,719,000. The level of capital expenditure on these works is increasing and as a corollary the level of State subsidy will also increase. The amount originally provided has proved insufficient and it is now necessary to provide an additional £50,000 to meet commitments—bringing the total extra provisions on the subhead to £220,000.

Under subhead I a sum of £2,300 is required as an increase in the grant-in-aid to An Foras Forbartha to meet the cost of the 13th round salary increase for the period 1st January, 1972, to 31st March, 1972, in accordance with the terms of the national agreement ratified by the Employer/Labour Conference.

I am also seeking an additional £100,000 for local improvement schemes. The House is already aware that the 1970-71 allocation was doubled for the current year to provide much needed work on accommodation roads, et cetera, and to provide additional opportunities for employment. There is great demand for these schemes in rural areas. This extra allocation will give a further stimulus to employment in rural areas and will help to reduce the back-log of applications held by the county councils.

An Ceann Comhairle

May I intervene for a moment? I should like to point out that this is not a token Supplementary Estimate which would enable a general debate on the Department's work to take place. This is an ordinary Supplementary Estimate and the debate is confined to its various subheads.

Dr. O'Donovan

May I raise a point? I take it that remarks may be made about the completely inaccurate Estimates that were put before the House for this Department last year. Housing subsidy is, in fact, interest on loans and there is no question of this kind of increase occurring without the Estimate for the Department having being faked last April. I take it that remarks of that sort are in order.

An Ceann Comhairle

So long as they come under the various subheads.

Dr. O'Donovan

Thank you.

Mr. Hogan

I appreciate that on a Supplementary Estimate one cannot have a full dress debate on any particular Department to which the Estimate refers. At the same time, I detect a certain sharpening attitude towards limitation of debate in respect of the Supplementary Estimates. One always likes to see the Estimate going through with reasonable speed but that is no justification for the attitude which one detects to curtail the debate unduly. There should be reasonable latitude.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not want to limit the debate in any way but, according to standing Orders, I must inform Deputies that the debate is confined to the subheads.

Mr. Hogan

In respect of the first item here—Salaries, Wages and Allowances—the Minister is looking for a supplementary sum of £123,000. In regard to the next item—Travelling and Incidental Expenses—an additional sum of £32,700 is looked for. Judging by the supplementary leaflet and the Book of Estimates one would imagine that the expenditure on those two items constitutes the entire expenditure envisaged by the Minister's Department.

This tends to give to a superficial observer a false impression of what is involved here. The Minister, in looking for extra money here, should disclose other sources of revenue available to the Custom House which have been utilised in increasing amounts for a number of years. This extra expenditure is drawn entirely from county councils and it is classified under about 12 headings. This type of expenditure is not adequately disclosed to the House when a Supplementary Estimate or the main Estimate is submitted. The Minister's brief in so far as subheads A and B are concerned is inadequate. There has been an increasing subvention taken from local authorities in respect of the expenses involved in the Custom House. The total money secured over the past few years from motor taxation has increased from £10½ million in 1967 to nearly £16 million in 1970-71.

During that time what have been termed administrative or miscellaneous expenses have increased from £808,000 to £1.6 million and the subvention taken from the Road Fund by the Exchequer has increased from £1.2 million in 1966-67 to £3 million in 1970-71. There is not disclosed in the Minister's brief, or in the Supplementary Estimate before us the increasing sum of money collected by local authorities for use in the Custom House and in revenue generally. A sum of £3 million has been siphoned off to the Exchequer directly and £1.6 million has been made available in the Custom House under at least 12 different headings to pay for An Foras Forbartha, civil instruction and a number of other items. Those headings are published every year in the report of the Committee of Public Accounts and are available in the Library in the Road Fund accounts. This type of presentation of accounts leaves much to be desired.

There is talk of the Road Fund being abolished completely. It would be just as well to abolish it when we do not get a breakdown from the Minister under subheads A and B in this Supplementary Estimate. We have a revised Estimate here of £1.6 million for 1970-71 and apparently similar amounts are to be met from the amount collected at local taxation level. The Minister made passing reference to subhead E.1, the housing subsidy. He mentions 15,000 houses. This is a record and on the face of it it would seem that we should be delighted with it. However, over 20 years ago, when we were much less well-off than we are now, according to our national income, in terms of the number of cars we have on the road and the number of wireless sets and television sets, we were building practically the same number of houses. Under the first inter-Party Government the figure in respect of housing was 14,000.

One has serious doubts as to whether the move towards smaller houses and houses with a shorter life is a good one. The Minister in his anxiety to push up statistics has moved in this direction. For years the number of houses per thousand of the population that we have built here has been the lowest of about 20 countries in the OECD with the exception of Portugal and Turkey. That is still the position. Even the Minister with his low-cost housing programme has not broken through on that front. A second difficulty arises. The Minister mentioned that the high figure he hopes to improve on in the future will be achieved at the expense of an inferior type house.

We come now to the expense of passing over the small contractors up and down the country. The new system which has been evolved seems to provide for large contractors. That is the essence of the concept. Perhaps only a dozen contractors in this country can carry out the really large contracts. We have tried to carry out housing contracts with the help of local contractors and labour. We now find that the small contractor is being threatened with being phased out. Eventually a situation may arise where building will be in the hands of the large contractors. What will the position be then? Will we be in the same position as small business people when large businesses come in and take over and do what they like with prices?

The Minister dealt with water supplies and sewerage. The question of group water schemes is always a difficult one. Group water schemes should be taken off the shoulders of very small-urban bodies. The White Paper suggested that small urban bodies should be abolished. They find it increasingly difficult to meet the demands made on them. Water supplies and sewerage are always expensive. It is not fair to criticise the small urban bodies because they cannot keep pace with modern developments in that sphere when one considers the limited budget under which they have to work.

Many counties, including my own, were foremost in the development of regional water schemes. I do not know whether there was ever a specific directive issued but through the various pressures which Government departments can place on local authorities we have moved from the sphere of regional schemes to the sphere of group schemes. Group schemes, being of a private or semi-private nature, are dealt with directly by the Department through a local engineering officer. We have a loosely-knit system of liaison between the county council and the local engineering officer. The local engineer does not report to the county council. We have tried to circumvent that by asking for a quarterly report. In general, the system is satisfactory but when local groups come to me asking about what is happening, I cannot answer them because I do not know. The matter is being handled by a local engineer and the Department. From the point of view of a local representative this is unsatisfactory. One cannot help feeling that this situation may be connived at by the Department. If the Department want to slow down water supply work at any stage they can do it easily by having the recommendations, communications and documents passed up and down between the local engineer and the Department. Evasive answers can be given to local committees to any questions asked.

I spoke about the expenditure in the Custom House which is not apparently dealt with in the Book of Estimates. It is not shown in any Supplementary Estimate how the moneys collected by local councils are dealt with by the Department. I have here the report for 1968-69 of the Committee of Public Accounts. It discloses here that "other expenses" for that year included a number of items such as administrative expenses of the Department of Local Government, stationery and printing, contributions towards surveyors' salaries, State laboratory, and Comptroller and Auditor General's audit fee. The only expense which comes back to local level is the expense of the local authority's collection of expenses. Mention is made of Garda expenses and payments to An Foras Forbartha for their research programme and payments in connection with the medical bureau of road safety. There are about six other items which vary from year to year, but these are items incurred in the Custom House. At a time when rates are becoming an increasing burden on our people, having increased last year by 20 per cent when the cost of living increased by only 8 per cent, one would imagine that the Minister would not take money from the ratepayers, thus severely eroding the Road Fund.

Another item refers to rates and the balance between what the Custom House should meet and what the local authorities should meet. I have mentioned the increase in the amount being taken from the Road Fund proper by the Custom House. On one occasion all the money collected by local authorities and county councils was passed back to them to be used as they deemed fit.

Mr. Tully

On one occasion when an inter-Party Government took a small part of such money there was a terrible row.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Hogan

I am dealing with the question of salaries and wages and the money given to An Foras Forbartha— salaries, wages and allowances, travelling and incidental expenses. I am pointing out that this does not give an adequate picture and that quietly and surreptitiously—that would be a fair word—the Minister is gently taking away increasing amounts of money collected at local level and at the same time everybody is complaining about the amount of rates. This A and B and the expenses that are there——

An Ceann Comhairle

The question of A and B does not open up a general debate on local government policy. The House has had an opportunity of discussing general local government policy from last May until October and we cannot have a repetition of that debate on a supplementary estimate.

Mr. Hogan

Some of these matters may have been adverted to during that time but the situation has considerably worsened since then and I think a situation that has not been rectified merits recurring reference. It is on that basis that I mention these points. Finally, there is the matter of the grant-in-aid to An Foras Forbartha. Perhaps the Minister would explain why it is necessary to give a grant-in-aid to An Foras Forbartha. This is like a sore thumb to me at present. We are giving a much higher percentage in grants-in aid in this Parliament than in the British House of Commons. I appreciate that a grant-in-aid may be necessary in certain circumstances but it is a technique of expenditure which we should watch much more carefully in future. Would the Minister explain why it is necessary to have this grant-in-aid system? Could there not be a simple vote for which the Minister would be accountable to the House instead of a grant-in-aid? There may be a very good reason for it but, if so, it escapes me and I should be glad if the Minister would give the explanation. Admittedly, in this case it is a specified recipient and to that extent, it is much less objectionable than some grants-in-aid we have where the recipient is not specified but I should be glad if the Minister would deal with it when replying.

Mr. Tully

In the absence of Deputy Treacy who, unfortunately, is ill with flu I must say a few words on this supplementary estimate or group of supplementary estimates. I have noticed in the past few years a peculiar pattern evolving. It is that Ministers for Finance appear at Budget time to have made an estimate of income and expenditure for the following year which usually is nothing near what is likely to be needed or what is likely to result on either the income or expenditure sides. When it comes to February and March and a fairly accurate estimate can be made of what the income is likely to be, the Minister look around their Departments to see how much they are falling short under various heads. This is conveyed to the Minister for Finance and the Government and they succeed in producing the authority for the Supplementary Estimates which usually result in something like a balanced budget. I do not know if this is the proper way; perhaps we should have a Budget every month. In view of the fact that we have had this sort of thing going on it appears that something like that is needed. Money made available last October, to be spent out of next year's Estimate which was announced a little over a month ago, does complicate matters but I should like the Minister to tell me if what I suggest is nearly correct. Or, is it the position that ordinary working people are now being mulcted to such an extent that fantastic increases have occurred in income, particularly in income tax and that the Minister now finds that he can attempt to balance his Budget by getting some more money to spend in his Department and similarly in other Departments. I did not take the trouble to check the total amount of supplementaries for this year but it is frightening, as it was last year.

May I point out that most of this money appears not to be additional money given for additional work; there is no suggestion this will generate additional work. In fact, it is making available necessary money to pay additional salaries, wages, travel allowances and increases in costs of various kinds. To suggest that it will improve the position in regard to local government expenditure and that more work will be done as a result of it, is not true. I have been checking on this at various levels and I find that for years the Department of Local Government have made no attempt under what is covered by the subheads here to give additional money necessary for various additional costs except when they introduce something like this. Then, under a blanket coverage, they give certain sums which help to level off the position towards the end of the financial year. The fact that we are so close to the end of the financial year makes this situation even more ridiculous.

Local improvements schemes are covered here. This is the second additional £500,000. I wonder would this have anything to do with the decision taken last year in regard to the dole? If it has, the Minister might comment on it. As regards housing, the Minister should be honest with this House on one point in particular and that is the matter of low-cost housing. I do not want to widen the terms of the debate but when we talk about a housing subsidy and when the Minister refers particularly to low-cost housing and local authority housing, he must understand that what Deputy Hogan said is correct. First, it appears that the building of groups of local authority houses will now be confined to larger contractors who will be recommended by the Department and, as the Minister says, he will provide the necessary finance. Secondly, as regards low-cost housing, at least in my own area, according to one estimate we got for low-cost housing, the houses will be £600 per house dearer than in the last scheme for a similar type of house built in the area. If that is the Minister's idea of low-cost housing it is not mine and there should be another look at this. I believe it is all cod.

Incidentally, I heard the Minister talking about road safety and I applaud him for his efforts to do something about this matter. But he is the only person who can do something about it because, as long as he continues the situation where he refuses to allow necessary money to be allocated for the repair of bad roads—in some counties particularly the situation in regard to county roads and second-class roads is very bad—then so long will we have those accidents.

The Minister referred, too, to water and sewerage schemes. I wonder if it would be worthwhile putting down a question to the Minister for the purpose of finding out what is happening regarding these schemes. There is no point in telling us that a certain amount extra is to be allocated for this work because so far as I know it is almost impossible to get sanction for any fairly big scheme. Not only is it very difficult to get sanction financially for a scheme, but it is very difficult also to get sanction for the carrying out of a scheme to enable its planning to continue. I refer, in particular, to one major scheme in my own area, the plans of which have been with the Department for many months. Recently I asked the Minister when the matter would be dealt with but he told me that he did not know.

Really, what he was telling me was that there was no point in proceeding with it because the necessary money was not available.

I am not being personal in criticising the Minister, but I am referring to him as the political head of his Department. It is the duty of the Minister to ensure that whatever is done in this important Department is done correctly. There is no use trying to cover up by allowing schemes to lie in the Department. When one asks about a scheme one is told that it is too low on the priority list and it is suggested that one take the matter up with one's county council and ask them to put it high on the priority list. If this is done the Minister may say that he does not know when it will be dealt with. When one gets a reply of that nature, there is not anything further one can do in the matter. It is not fair for the Minister who, I might say, is a responsible Minister, to give such answers in the House. Can he tell us whether this additional money for water and sewerage schemes means that there will be further schemes sanctioned or is the money required to cover existing schemes?

Mr. Molloy

An increased number of schemes have been released.

Mr. Tully

The Minister is talking about what has happened since this time last year. I am talking about now.

Mr. Molloy

When is "now"?

Mr. Tully

It is 11.15 a.m. on the 16th March, 1972. Perhaps the Minister will be more accurate in this regard when he is replying. Two weeks ago, for instance, the Minister did not know what was the position regarding the Mornington scheme, but I hope that since then he has been able to get a little more information.

Regarding group water schemes, the people concerned are doing their best but at the same time these schemes seem to be held up. When local people decide on a group water scheme they get in touch with officials from the Department and from their local authority. A committee are appointed and this committee begin collecting money in the area. The scheme is planned by an engineer but very often such schemes are held up. I have succeeded in respect of a number of schemes in my area but perhaps I did so by being a nuisance to the officials concerned. I wonder whether the officials are getting too much work to do? Are the inspectors being asked to cover too many areas? If so, could that be the reason for the delays in these schemes? The officials are very courteous and helpful but the schemes do not seem to go ahead as fast as they should.

The Minister's predecessor agreed with me when I suggested that when a scheme is being arranged the local authority concerned should be allowed to carry out the work if they are prepared to do so. Later the Minister told me privately that the officials of his Department would not agree to that. If this were the procedure, it would have a two-fold effect. First, it would mean that people would be kept in employment by the local authority and, secondly, it would mean that the job would be supervised and carried out properly. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he would be prepared to recommend this procedure. When work is not supervised properly faults may be found very shortly afterwards. If the work was carried out by the local authority, the problem of getting contractors would be eliminated. The number of contractors who are anxious to do this work is very limited.

While I am on this issue I would ask the Minister whether there is a standard regulation regarding the type of pipes to be used. Concrete pipes are being made in Drogheda and Wavin Pipes operate at Balbriggan. For many years Wavin pipes were used mostly because they were light and easy to handle. However, during the past two or three years there has been a hardening against Wavin pipes particularly pipes of a large size. It has been suggested that they do not stand up to stress, that if heavy loads go over them they may not stay together. I do not know whether that is true but I would suggest that because of the importance of the matter the Minister should arrange for an inspector to go to the manufacturers of those pipes and specify the particular standard required. In this way group schemes would not be held up because of the Department and the local authority arguing as to the type of pipe that should be used. The matter is a simple one but one that can be settled only by the Minister's Department. Another matter which causes trouble is the question of whether it is necessary to have proper piping on the roads. The local authority may say that copper piping must be used while somebody else may say that a PBC pipe is all right. Surely there is something wrong in this regard. The regulation should be made by the local authority and, thereby, avoid unnecessary complications.

I have great respect for civil servants. Most of them are very courteous but I feel sorry for some of those who deal with housing grants because if I inquire about a grant, I may be told that the matter is in the hands of the inspector or that the file is elsewhere when what they should be saying is that they are sorry but they have run out of money and cannot make any more available until such instructions are received. Towards the end of the financial year it appears that there is a type of quota system used whereby a certain number of grants can be paid each day. This is a ludicrous system. If a job is completed and arrangements made from the beginning of the year to provide a certain amount of money, grants should be paid.

Very often when an inspector examines a house, whether it be a new house or a reconstructed one, he may find some very small detail out of order. He goes back to the Department and maybe two months later the person receives a note telling him that the inspector has not passed the work for this particular reason. After the man has put the matter right he reapplies to the Department and it may be another three or four months before an inspector is sent out again. At that stage some other minor matter may be noticed and so the position can drag on for a long time. Admittedly, this sort of thing does not happen frequently but it has happened on occasions and seems to happen more frequently towards the end of the financial year. There are also situations where people who have bought houses and who are entitled to supplementary grants cannot get the grants because there is some doubt as to the correct payment of the original grants. This means that the people who are attempting to build their own houses and want to pay their way are being put to a lot of unnecessary trouble. I find most of the officials in the Department of Local Government housing section, no matter what county they are in—and I deal with a number of them in various counties— are very reasonable people. However, they should be able to clear the files according as they come to them. There should not be any hanky-panky about having to pass them backwards or forwards. When the number of complaints reach a dozen or more and when, again and again, the same file has to be referred to by way of complaint there is something wrong and it is not the fault of the officials. I would ask the Minister to have these matters cleared up. Maybe there are not enough officials in the Department and that the number of them looking after this have, for one reason or another, been cut down. If they have, this should be attended to.

Another matter is referred to here about which the Minister might consider doing something. Personally, I feel strongly about this, but maybe I have the wrong end of the stick. If a speculative builder builds a house and he is selling the house to a client and quotes a price, that price should be the full price he gets and he should not be entitled to collect as well the Department of Local Government grant which in most cases he does; or if he wants it that way let the Department pay it only to the person who is buying the house and let the contractor add it on to the price of the house when he is quoting a price. It is unfair that he should quote £300 less than the buyer will have to pay for it because if the man does not get the grant from the Department he has to pay that much extra to the contractor, and he should not be asked to do that.

I suppose there will be big changes when we go into the Common Market, and I heard on the news this morning that a regulation is being introduced in relation to the use of Irish materials. I am rather amused about this, because when the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement was introduced arrangements were made that British materials could be used the same as Irish materials. Now we are talking about protecting Irish industry under Common Market conditions by preventing the introduction of foreign materials. I do not know whether it will have any effect. There is also the question I mentioned a few minutes ago that the big contractor was the only person who could tender for the low-cost housing schemes; but then, of course, continental contractors must be given certain rights. I do not know what they will be looking for; and they are entitled to employ their own people as well.

The Minister referred in his brief more than once this morning to the question of local authority housing. Is any effort being made to speed up local authority schemes? Unfortunately, I was out of the country when a question was being dealt with in this connection, but Deputy Kavanagh asked a supplementary. In answer to a supplementary on Deputy Hogan's question some weeks ago, the Minister told me that local authority group houses under six could be proceeded with by the local authority without reference to the Department. He did not add, of course, that the Department would, first of all, have to make arrangements with the local authority officials as to the price, nor did he add that it would have to be within the block allocation. Since the block allocation will not be made until 1st April next, then the suggestion that this meant that people could proceed with houses immediately was not quite true; in fact, they have to wait until the Minister notifies them what the block allocation will be, and when the Minister has done that he will say to them: "Your price is X and you cannot go above that." If the price they get is even £1 over that, the whole scheme falls down.

Something rather peculiar has been happening about this scheme. Contractors have applied to the Department for sanction for houses under the old system and the Department said the price was too high. They were readvertised and similar prices came in or a little bit more. The difference between the original price at which they could have been built two years ago and the price which is now being quoted is £500. I am sure the Department, with a red face, will have to sanction the new price. They can get out of it by fixing the block allocation price at something around that and allow the house to be proceeded with. It is nothing unusual to find people saying they are waiting seven or eight years for a house, but it is also nothing unusual to find cases with which the Department are dealing passing backwards and forwards for a period of almost two years. This is entirely wrong, and if the Minister can do anything to help, he will have the blessing of many people who have been waiting for houses.

Mr. Hogan

It is part of the game.

Mr. Tully

I would not accuse the Minister of being involved in a game like that. One of the shocking things about it all is that when the allocation for housing is made or when the local authority decide to build a certain number of houses, if they have a successful scheme which is suitable to the council, was suitable to the Department and most certainly was suitable to the tenant, why must there be a new design? Or is this another game in which somebody has to be employed to design a different type of house which, having been erected, may turn out to be not as suitable as the one which was built before that? If the Department get a good house in a local authority area or in a different local authority area, why can they not, if they want to change designs, switch the Tipperary-style house to Meath, and the Meath-style house to Cavan or to Westmeath or somewhere else, and in that way use designs which have already proved to be suitable? This can be done and it would save a great deal of time and money. All that is needed is a little extra effort and thought.

The Minister's predecessor was very keen on prototype houses. We had a number of prototype houses built in Meath and I am sure some of the extra money here relates to some of them. The inside of these houses is quite good, but their external appearance does not attract anyone. If we are going to experiment with houses, we should experiment with a type of house which has a reasonably good appearance.

The Minister could very well persuade local authorities who have to provide housing accommodation for people with maybe one, two or three in a family that a prefab type of house might suit their requirements. Some local authorities do it, but it is not generally done. Could the Minister not suggest to all local authorities, when housing is badly needed as it is in some cases, that some type of prefab house should be erected which would suit the requirements for the time being? In that way people could be rehoused much more quickly than they are at the moment.

Many people seem to think that local authority houses are built for the very poor. The very poor cannot afford a new house. When a tenant goes into a local authority house he must pay rent. That was laid down by one of the Minister's predecessors, Deputy Blaney. Secondly, he must pay rates. Why should a tenant of a local authority house not get the same consideration as the tenant of a house built by private enterprise? The tenant in this case gets away with paying no rates for one year and then he pays one-ninth, two-ninths and so on for the next ten years. No matter how rich he is he gets that remission. In my county, a local authority tenant pays about 75p per week extra from the day he becomes the tenant. This is an aspect that should be examined. When rates were low it did not matter so much, but it is very important now. If a local authority tenant is paying £3 per week rent and has to pay 75p per week on top of that for rates this is very important to that tenant. The Minister might usefully consider the situation and bring about more equality of treatment as between the two types of tenant.

Another matter the Minister might usefully examine is that of permitting tenants of local authority houses to become the owners of those houses at a reasonable repayment rate. Under the regulations made by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Blaney, the loan subsidy is removed from the price of the house before the tenant is allowed to purchase it. This is quite wrong. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander; the man who builds his own house or buys his own house from the private enterprise builder is not asked to pay back any of the grant given for that house. During the period in which the Minister may remain in the Department I would ask him to alter these two things— the rates on local authority houses for the first ten years and the purchase price to tenants.

Mr. Moore

This Supplementary Estimate is for a comparatively small amount. Despite that, it is an important pointer to the progress being made in housing. The Minister has brought about a quiet revolution in housing. While a more violent revolution may be needed to increase the tempo of house-building, facts and figures prove that in this year we built 15,000 dwellings. That is the figure mentioned in the Third Programme for Economic Expansion. It has been reached. The Minister is in no way complacent about the position. I myself would like to see a figure of 17,000 houses a year because, unless we reach this figure, the housing problem will not be solved in the foreseeable future.

At the moment emigration has practically ceased. Indeed, there is evidence of immigration. People are all the time seeking higher standards and the demand for housing is bound to go on increasing. Unless the State and local authorities raise the moneys essential for the purpose of providing houses no progress will be made. As I said, this small Supplementary Estimate is a pointer to the policy of the Minister and I take this opportunity of once more congratulating him on his fresh approach to the problem.

Mention has been made of low-cost housing. There is factual evidence of such housing in the suburbs of Dublin.

While the Minister has insisted on low-cost housing he has also insisted on high-class finish. Standards are going up all the time. The Minister's attempts to keep down costs have happily borne fruit to some extent. In these days of almost universal inflation it is very hard to keep down prices, but it is vital that the building trade should be kept going at its maximum capacity.

I should like to see redevelopment of Dublin city centre. We have at the moment the suburban sprawl. The corporation are under constant pressure to provide houses and, because they are, we cannot afford to wait until areas are cleared. The people have to be housed right away. There must be some suburban development but the emphasis should be on redevelopment of the city centre. Economists maintain that it is very wrong to use arable land for building unless that cannot be avoided. There are parts of Dublin city which could be redeveloped, such as the Liberties and City Quay. The cost would probably be greater because these properties are much more expensive. On the other hand, services are already available. So are schools, churches, libraries, swimming pools and other amenities. Development in these areas would revitalise the city and bring about the creation of a better community. We should not make the mistake that has been made across the Channel of having intensive commercial development in cities with the result that from 5 o'clock on Friday evening until 9 o'clock on Monday morning parts of these cities are dead. I do not think this will happen to a great extent in Dublin but it is wrong that it should happen to any extent.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would Deputy Moore stick to the headings?

May I refer the Deputy to rule 126 of Standing Orders? It reads:

In the discussion of a supplementary vote the debate shall be confined to the Items constituting the same, and no discussion may be raised on the original Vote, save in so far as it may be necessary to explain or illustrate the particular Items under discussion.

Mr. Tully

May be Deputy Moore is saying the Minister should make a grant which would cover all the rates.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We must leave rates for another day.

Mr. Moore

It says here that there is an additional sum required for a scheme of grants towards the cost of constructing or improving accommodation and bog roads, drains, et cetera. The Minister has brought in this Supplementary Estimate and it shows a tremendous drive in his Department at present. Local government to most people is synonymous with housing and we can record here this morning that the Minister has increased total construction to 15,000 dwellings, that next year we should do even better, that he has tackled the problem of low-cost housing and the problem of the accommodation of the small family or the single individual. The Minister can feel satisfied with his whole housing policy. We can look with confidence to the future provided we do not allow complacency to enter into the scheme of things.

I would ask the Minister to consider, in reference to his Estimate next year, the introduction of grants or legislation to ensure that the redevelopment of the central area of this city will be expedited so that within four or five years the ugly gaps caused by the demolition of old houses are occupied by new dwellings. By that time the Greater Dublin area will have a population of one million and that will involve the provision of housing. I am confident that the Minister will tackle these problems.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The House is being asked to vote an additional sum of £1,763,000 to cover such items as housing subsidy—I presume that refers to local authority houses—private houses, water and sewerage schemes and, in some constituencies, the very important local improvement schemes. These are all very important schemes from the point of view of those affected by them.

When dealing with local improvement schemes, water and sewerage schemes and, in particular, with housing, the best results can be obtained if there is close co-operation between the three arms of local government, namely, the Minister and the Department, the executives, meaning the county managers, and the duly elected local representatives. We are not getting the best results under the headings dealt with in this Supplementary Estimate for the reason that there is not proper co-operation and there is a move away from democracy and towards bureaucracy. This country is preparing for a take-over by bureaucracy. We are being gradually orientated in that direction.

A glaring example that demonstrates the point I am making in regard to lack of co-operation and lack of frankness with Parliament and with local representatives was the announcement made last night, or in the early hours of this morning, that the local elections are being postponed. That is a typical example of a Minister refusing to take the House and the country into his confidence.

The Minister was asked on several occasions if the local elections would be held this year. He gave evasive and slick answers to the House. Last night, the eve of the day that he was coming in as Minister for Local Government to move a Supplementary Estimate, a ready-made opportunity to make the announcement to Parliament, he made the announcement that the local elections, which affect every part of the country, would be postponed. He could have shown his desire to co-operate and to be frank with the people. Instead, the announcement was made in the secrecy of the night. Fortunately, it was not made at a Fianna Fáil dinner or at a dog fight. I say that that is bad for local democracy, bad for co-operation between local representatives and the Minister. I realise that it is not relevant, apart from demonstrating the point I am complaining about, that we are moving away from Parliamentary democracy and from local democracy. It will be a very bad day for Ireland when we are taken over by bureaucracy. It is a gentle, slow movement, but I detect it. Unfortunately, the people seem to be becoming geared to the take-over. It will take a long time.

I want to leave that matter on the note that I am protesting, in the strongest possible manner, that the Minister was not frank with the House in replying to questions put to him over the past few months on this topic of the postponement of local elections. The Minister should have announced this all-important decision to Parliament when he was introducing this Supplementary Estimate, which provided an opportunity for him to do so.

There is a provision in the Supplementary Estimate for housing subsidy. As I have said, I take it that that deals with local authority houses. I was shocked within the last couple of days when I heard the Minister intimating, in reply to a question put down by Deputy Power of Kildare, that he was prepared—admittedly, in certain circumstances—to authorise the building by local authorities of houses without water and sewerage—non-serviced houses. We got in a few supplementary questions. The Minister tried to suggest to me that these houses were being built for poor people who wanted to live in isolated districts. I could understand the Minister giving a grant to elderly persons who wanted to build houses for themselves on their own farms in isolated places, if they could not afford the expense of installing water and sewerage but I would certainly discourage them from building non-serviced houses. It is primitive to permit a local authority to build houses for anyone, in any place, without water or sewerage. They should go to the extra expense of putting in septic tanks and the necessary sewerage and of boring a well. A well can be bored at a cost varying from less than £100 to a maximum of £200. Where public money is used to build houses, the houses should be fully serviced. I am referring to the question put down by Deputy Power in regard to houses being built by local authorities out of public funds, for renting.

Where a scheme of houses is being built in a town, whether it comprises six houses or 40 houses, or more, central heating should be installed. In the case of some schemes, central heating is not being installed and in ten years time the houses will be as out of date as houses are at present that have no toilet facilities. The cost of certain types of central heating is about £150 per house if installed during the course of building. Therefore, in the case of houses that are expected to last for 50 or 60 years it is only reasonable that central heating should be provided

Deputies know that there are delays in the payment of reconstruction grants, water and sewerage grants and new house grants. Perhaps we should not complain about the delays because at least it necessitates our keeping in touch with our constituents, but it should not be necessary for public representatives to make representations for payment of grants. I was told by the Minister recently that the delay from the date of inspection to the date of payment was either one month or six weeks. Everyone knows that the delay is much more; in many cases it is four or five months and sometimes people are living in the houses for a considerable time before they receive the grants. I would ask the Minister to expedite payment of the grants.

However, that is not my main interest here. My hope is to stress properly what the Minister for Finance told us in his Budget statement about dealing with inflation. In this connection I will deal briefly with what has been called "housing subsidy". Of course it is not a housing subsidy and I do not know who christened it that. In the explanatory part of his statement the Minister said that an additional sum of £700,000 is required for contributions towards loan charges under the 1966 Housing Act. That means that additional moneys are required to pay the interest on borrowings from the Local Loans Fund. It is dishonest that the Government should have to bring in this kind of provision in that connection. It has nothing to do with the explanation given by the Minister in his brief when he said:

Due to the more rapid submission and processing of claims for housing subsidy, arising out of the expanded local authority building programme of recent years, the total sum maturing for payment to various county councils, borough corporations and urban district councils under subhead E.1 during the current financial year will amount to £5,892,000, that is £700,000 above the voted provision of £5,192,000.

We should at least pretend to be honest in this House. We should not pour dirt over ourselves continuously. The Department of Local Government officials are idiots if they do not know——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure the Deputy realises——

Dr. O'Donovan

If the Chair will let me finish the sentence. They are idiots if they did not know at the beginning that this money would be required. I believe they did know and that is the point I am making. I am quite certain they put up to the Minister for Finance, in the first instance, and to the Government before they approved the Book of Estimates, the full amount that would be required. Therefore, the responsibility rests with the Government for having produced a fake Book of Estimates.

I will speak about this fakery on each Supplementary Estimate that comes before the House, if I am in the House. It is outrageous that the Minister for Finance should come in here with his Budget speech and say he has stopped inflation when all he is doing is postponing the terror. We have more Supplementary Estimates this year than the year before. We had £38 million additionally last year and £35 million more the year before. I have got tired of adding them up and I have got tired of telling the House what I think about the position. Not until this year was it said in the House by a Minister for Finance that he would stop inflation. He said it on the basis of the fraud and the fake I have been talking about. That is my contribution to this debate.

I admit that the explanation in regard to private housing is fair enough. I will accept that more private houses were built and that £600,000 more money must therefore be provided. If the number of houses completed has increased, inevitably more money is required. I must say, however, that one reason for this increase in private housing in recent times is because of the way the Fianna Fáil Government behaved between 1958 and 1963. They did not build a house. They decided instead to go into an economic programme and the result was that we had 10,000 homeless people in Dublin up to a short time ago. However, I do not mind admitting that at long last the Government are catching up with the housing situation in Dublin. They are to be congratulated for that but they are not to be congratulated for producing fake Estimates year after year—a fraudulent Book of Estimates. There is no sense, rhyme or reason to it. The Minister told us about the increase in the amount for local improvement schemes. He said:

I am also seeking an additional £100,000 for local improvement schemes.

He said it was for the current year. Of course, it is not additional in the current year. I have here the Book of Estimates and the sum is the same, £500,000. I am looking at page 63 of the Book of Estimates. The sum given for 1971-72 is £500,000 and the sum for 1970-71 is given as £500,000. Was not the Minister's statement to the House therefore misleading? He may not have meant it and I do not accuse him of bad faith but he said:

The House is already aware that the 1970-71 allocation was doubled for the current year.

That is not so. It was doubled through an announcement of the Minister on 7th May, 1971. The Book of Estimates was not with us then. According to the printers' note at the back it was printed in April, 1971, but to the best of my recollection it was not distributed until May. Therefore, the Minister's statement in this respect was not accurate and a Minister should not make a statement to the House which is not accurate. It is not as if the Minister for Local Government today had had a long brief like that of the Minister for Health last week.

When a brief extends to 40 or 50 pages anybody would forgive a man for a slip. This is only a two page brief and the statements in it should be accurate. I approve of this increase. The reason for it is to make some pretence at dealing with unemployment. I notice the Minister announced he would tell everybody this afternoon what the distribution of this extra money would mean. Like Deputy Moore, I do not represent a constituency which is likely to get any money out of the local improvements scheme but that does not mean that I do not agree with Deputy Fitzpatrick that County Cavan does not require a good deal of money.

Water supply and sewerage is half way between the housing subsidy and the housing grant. It is in neither category. I have no particular comment to make on that except to say that it is appalling to have Supplementary Estimates for millions of pounds at this time every year. I am not referring to the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Defence as I am glad that was brought in. I complained about this on the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Transport and Power. The idea that CIE would not lose as much money this year as last year was absurd and any messing around with the Book of Estimates is a disgrace to any Government.

No Irish newspaper says a word about the financial difficulties of the Government. Serious English journals are full of it at the moment. The fact is that for once they are speaking the truth. Last year's expenditure on this Estimate was £12 million. Then we had an Estimate of £14 million for this year. Now we are presented with a Supplementary Estimate for almost £2 million which means that the Estimate for this Department has gone up by 33? per cent. In spite of that the Minister for Finance came in here last May and told us he was dealing with inflation.

The Minister indicated that he will shortly take an interest in this. I do not want to see a continuation of a situation where housing has turned up more millionaires in the last decade than any industry in this country. I do not want to see people continuing to increase their bank balances at the expense of young married people who are anxious to house themselves.

Local government pre-supposes a proximity to the people who are carrying out the functions of local government. I am very critical of the fact that people living on the perimeter of the city are so far away from the housing section of Dublin Corporation. The City Quay is as far away from them as Navan is from Dunboyne in regard to accessibility. The proposal to build civil offices at City Quay and not provide local offices on the perimeter of this city is a proposal I am opposed to. I hope the Minister will indicate to Dublin Corporation that they must send officials out to places where the people can meet them and not have them situated in the anonymity of a huge building in City Quay where nobody can see them or speak to them.

Mr. Finn

I welcome the increases in this Supplementary Estimate although I do not believe that they are adequate. I write more letters regarding housing in County Mayo than I do regarding any other problem. The situation in that county is very bad. We have a large number of elderly people, who, through no fault of their own, have to get pre-fab houses. Many of them even have to get caravans. In County Mayo we have not built 20 council houses since I entered the county council 13 years ago. In Claremorris we recently submitted to the Department a scheme for ten houses. Sanction was given for six houses. The town is developing and the Department should sanction the ten houses.

Essential repair grants have been availed of to a large extent in County Mayo. Mayo County Council pay £120 or sometimes £200 for putting a roof on a house. It would appear that the Government are paying this money and that they are paying supplementary grants. County Mayo is a region which has housing problems. From the correspondence I get it would appear that the Government are paying out money in grants. We have a rate of £8.30 in County Mayo. Very little can be done to improve this position. At the same time, there are small towns in the county which have not got sewerage services. The problem relating to Kilkelly was referred to the Minister a long time ago. Questions have been asked in Mayo about a sewerage scheme for this town. The Mayo County Council are only allocated a certain amount of money for sewerage services every year from the Department. As a result places like Kilkelly, Hollymount and Irishtown have not sewerage services. That would not happen in Galway. I must congratulate the Minister on the position there.

In so far as housing grants are concerned, my greatest concern is for a young man who works, perhaps, in CIE, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs or as a young teacher. A young man in such employment must provide his own house when he gets married. If he wishes for a little privacy he may like to move a little out of town. This man is debarred under section 4 from building a house of his own on a primary road. Usually a young man has very little capital and he can buy a site outside the town for £300 less than a similar site in a serviced area where the speculators abound. The Minister, coming from the west of Ireland, surely would not debar such a man from building a house. Whether on a first-class or second-class primary road. Eight young men approached the county council at the last meeting seeking planning permission to build on such roads and, thank God, they got the permission.

Mr. Molloy

I am surprised that the Deputy would reduce the efficiency of the safety factor on the national arterial roads by allowing the construction of new houses which would create new openings on to these roads. This is a very dangerous thing to do. Future generations will not thank the Mayo County Council if they are giving such permission under section 4. The mileage of primary roads in Mayo is small compared with that of other type roads where persons could get planning permission.

Mr. Finn

I do not think that traffic is a problem in Mayo.

Mr. Molloy

The number of deaths on the road has been directly related, from statistics and analyses, to the openings on to roads like these. There is a direct relationship between the number of accidents and the number of openings on arterial roads. It is bad policy to continue to allow new openings on to arterial roads, thus encouraging traffic and endangering the lives of people who live in the houses on those roads.

Mr. Finn

While I am a member of Mayo County Council if a young man wishes to buy a site two or three miles out of the town, can I tell him that the Minister will give him the extra money if he builds in the town? The grant of £300 odd, together with the £320, £330 or £340 from the local authority is nothing more than a bonus to the contractor. How can the Minister object to a young man, who may be raising £3,000 to £4,000 to build his house, building his house out from the town where the site is cheaper? Such young men must be helped today.

I should like to see the Estimate increased so as to give a grant of £600 to young men wishing to build their houses. They should also get £600 from the local authority in order to establish a home for a family when they get married. The Minister has stated that he is opposed to building on certain roads. We all know that. In County Mayo we have no traffic problem. The people are leaving County Mayo so fast that I doubt whether anyone will be left in some areas of the county. Surely the Minister does not wish to debar a man from building a house on a primary road in such circumstances. Such a regulation might apply in Galway or Dublin but it is unthinkable that it should apply in a place like Mayo. Young people in Mayo cannot be asked to pay an extra £500 or £600 for a site in a town. The Minister can be assured that while I am a member of Mayo County Council section 4 will not be applied until such time as legislation is brought in to debar properly such building. I will not deprive a young man in my county of a house if he can build it cheaper outside the town. The amount of money which the Minister is giving is not sufficient. The young householder has to apply to Mayo County Council for a loan. I am here to represent such a young man and no provision has been made for him.

In so far as group water supplies in County Mayo are concerned, there are long delays in sanctioning the schemes. We could never get them under way if Mayo County Council had not helped those people as they did in the Tooreen and Aghamore area recently. The council had to raise a loan of £20,000 to provide a group water scheme for 240 houses in that area, together with their own contribution of £60,000. If this type of assistance were not given to rural dwellers who need group water schemes they would never get a supply. Thank God, Mayo County Council are doing this. It is a good thing.

The ratepayers' contribution for supplementary grants on all sewerage and water supply schemes is 50 per cent. It would appear from statements made, particularly at Fianna Fáil functions throughout the country that the people are getting wonderful benefits. But the people are actually making a larger contribution, particularly in my county. I welcome the increased grant to County Mayo in connection with local improvement schemes. There has been a substantial increase this year but there is one appeal I want to make to the Minister. In some areas where there are high valuations it is difficult for people to make up the contribution and in different parts of Mayo even after several applications they failed to collect the money. I ask the Minister to reduce this contribution. Sometimes a contribution of £200 or £300 is sought. It would be a tremendous hardship on those people, small farmers who are paying for all the other schemes and facilities as taxpayers and as ratepayers, to contribute such a large amount. It is all right for people with a £5 valuation but a man with a valuation of from £20 to £35 has to make a very high contribution and this creates hardship and difficulty. In a depressed area like that there may be two or three families who will not contribute at all. Some provision should be made whereby in a case where people are seeking a road to their houses or to their townland, Mayo County Council would have authority from the Minister in such cases of hardship to accept a lower contribution. The council are strictly bound by regulations and therefore I ask the Minister in cases of that kind to reduce the contribution.

We have done no drainage so far in County Mayo. I should like to see much more money allocated to local authorities under the rural improvements scheme heading and taken from arterial drainage schemes because I am firmly convinced that the main rivers should be opened under arterial drainage and that all the tributaries should be done by rural improvement schemes employing local men who have JCBs which would do the work extremely well. This would save the Government thousands of pounds. I saw this happening in the case of the River Moy where we had 800 applications in respect of extra schemes that were not done by arterial drainage. These schemes could easily be undertaken now, if we had sufficient money, as rural improvements schemes. More money should be allocated for local improvements schemes so that all these drains or tributaries could be done by small machines and local labour provided by men who are prepared to live in this country if work is available. That is how I should like to see it done.

Mr. Hussey

I should first of all like to compliment the Minister on his handling of Local Government affairs since he became Minister. It was a great challenge to him, but I was glad to see that he accepted it and I am pleased that he is doing a good job. Under his guidance great progress has been made in the Department. Listening to speakers opposite one would imagine that no progress had been made in recent years in the Department. Housing is one of their main activities and I am glad to record that tremendous progress has been made.

Up to March, 1970, 98,000 houses had been built and a further 93,000 had been reconstructed with the aid of State grants at a total cost of £469 million which included £92 million spent in subsidies from central and local taxation. The 191,000 houses built or reconstructed represent more than one-quarter of all the houses now built in the country. In 1970-71 we spent approximately £72 million in providing and reconstructing houses and a further £14.8 million, approximately, in subsidies from taxation. At present, we are building at the rate of five houses for every two built in the opening years of the decade. Approximately 13,700 new dwellings were built in 1970-71, a year when there was a serious setback due to the cement strike. Nevertheless, progress was made and I am glad to record this. I hope that progress will continue in future.

While tremendous progress has been made in the private sector, local authority housing has not been as good as I should like it to be. In 1971, 3,875 local authority houses were completed compared with 4,706 in 1969-70. In Galway we have a tremendous demand for local authority housing at present. While in the past sufficient progress was not made, I believe the council are now prepared to tackle this problem. We recently appointed extra staff to deal with this matter. In the years ahead I hope we shall be able to clear off some of the big backlog in local authority housing. It is a very unsatisfactory situation that in many cases people must wait for four or five years before they will even be promised a local authority house. Much of the red tape that is involved in applications could be and should be got rid of. It is frustrating for applicants to have several visits from local authority officials for the purpose of investigating their means and housing requirements. Much of this could be cut out so that houses could be provided more expeditiously.

It is about time that the grant paid in respect of reconstruction of houses was increased. A grant of £140 from the Department for a five-roomed house is of very little use when one considers today's costs in terms of labour and materials. Although the local authorities pay a supplementary grant of a similar amount, the total is not nearly sufficient. I hope the Minister will consider increasing the grant. In relation to water and sewerage, a grant of £75 is not sufficient either at present and I hope that it will be possible to increase this grant also. I am very pleased at the way in which the group water schemes are developing. These schemes are a most valuable form of communal activity which I hope will continue. Because of these schemes many people in rural Ireland have been given the opportunity having piped water, an opportunity that they would not have for a long time if they had to wait for regional schemes. In County Galway there are about 600 applications on hand for those schemes. I wish to pay tribute to the people who are associated with these schemes and, in particular, to the promoters of them who have taken so much trouble to provide this valuable service for the people in their areas. However, I would like to see more help being given by the Department. At present the position is very bad because of the shortage of engineers and supervisors to deal with the various schemes. It is about time that the Department saw fit to appoint more of these people to help the local communities in preparing their schemes. Very often there is a delay of two or three years between the time a scheme is initiated and the time of commencement of the actual work. Such delays cause much trouble because of the continuing increases in labour and material costs. There are long delays too, in the supplying of pumps and other equipment by the ESB. There is a need for some streamlining in this expanding area.

I do not wish to go into any great detail on this Estimate. I know we are confined to speaking only on these various headings but there is one matter to which I would like to refer before I conclude and that is the burden of rates in various towns. The burden on small shopkeepers is unbearable. I do not know what is the remedy but the Department should consider the matter seriously; otherwise many small business people will have to cease trading.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that we cannot have a discussion on the rates at this stage.

Mr. Hussey

I appreciate that. Regarding the local improvements scheme, I am glad to see that the Minister is seeking an additional £100,000 for this purpose. I can assure the Minister that this scheme is appreciated greatly in rural areas. I thank him for the additional money that was allotted to Galway County Council last year. A tremendous job has been done there in the provision of roads to serve people living in remote areas, the people who are neglected in every major scheme that is introduced. The local improvements scheme has been the means of eliminating much of the hardship in those areas. I am sure that the extra money being sought here for this scheme will be spent very effectively in the rural areas.

Mr. Enright

One might refer to the Department of Local Government as being in their own way a key industry in that they provide the nucleus for a wide spectrum of services such as house building, road construction and the provision of swimming pools. Certainly the Department are very important.

The Estimate before us is of a reasonable size, but when one considers the amount of unemployment in the country now, it would seem only right that the Government should channel as much money as possible into this Department in an effort to provide employment for some of the 78,000 people who are out of work. There is much necessary work to be done. For this reason I would like to see even more money being allocated in this Estimate.

One of the matters to which I should like to draw attention concerns the income limit of people who seek county council loans. With slight variations, the present limit is £1,500. This figure is too low. The Department of Local Government in conjunction with the building societies have an arrangement whereby county councils will guarantee building society loans. In this way the building societies are covered in respect of any loss that might result from a house being sold. This is a desirable arrangement. Regarding the income limit I would say that the present figure should be increased to a minimum of £2,000 because, apparently, the building societies have a limited amount of money to give to people who are anxious to obtain loans to build their own houses. The only other source from which to get loans to build new houses is the county council. A figure of £1,500 is about £30 a week. Many people who are just over the limit are hamstrung if they want to build a new house. They are unable to save sufficient money for this purpose. Their income debars them from the county council loan because they are over the limit of £1,500. The limit should be raised to £2,000.

Deputy Finn mentioned applications under section 4 of the County Managers Act under which a county manager is directed to give planning permission. I have never adopted such a course of action yet. When I say "yet" I mean I am considering it at present. It is something I would hesitate to do but at times it is necessary. The Minister referred to traffic hazards on the main or arterial roads. However, I wish to draw his attention to one case where a person had a filling station on the main Dublin-Limerick road. The road was running through a village, but it is now running in a straight line and has by-passed the village. The person's house was facing onto the main road. He was obtaining his living from the filling station and from a very small shop in which he sold sweets, confectionery and so on. He made application to have a filling station erected at his garden beside the new road and his application was turned down. The Minister and his Department must be guided by the rules and regulations laid down, but this decision by the Department has created the greatest hardship I have come across in many a day. It is grossly unfair. I understand it is not good policy to allow extra openings onto these roads.

Deputy Hogan referred to the false impression that was given in the heading. He said I was not giving the total picture, that I was not including local authorities. He also referred to the Road Fund. These matters are not appropriate to be dealt with on this Supplementary Estimate. When we introduce programme budgeting it may happen that Estimates will cover all these other sources of finance for local authorities, but this is not done at the present time.

Deputy Hogan also made the point that the smaller urban authorities because of the limited resources available to them were not in a position to undertake the necessary water and sewerage schemes. I agree wholeheartedly, and I assure him that this is one reason why I am reviewing the whole structure of local authorities and why I published the White Paper setting out, in broad terms, my thinking on this matter. I hope to be coming back to the House in the not too distant future with firm proposals for the implementation of some of the suggestions contained in the White Paper. The Deputy has made the point that smaller urban authorities, due to their lack of resources, have been a retarding factor on the growth, development and improvement of smaller towns. This is a very valid point and one which influences me greatly in deciding whether these smaller authorities should be continued or whether they should be abolished, with those areas becoming the responsibility of the county council. The county council would be the greater revenue collecting body, with much greater resources available to it, and would be in a much stronger position to carry out necessary works. I think it is necessary to do something about this so that people living in these small towns will not be deprived of modern, up-to-date facilities to which the Government believe they are entitled and which the Government would like to provide as rapidly as possible, utilising the available resources to the maximum extent.

It was suggested wrongly that because the Department exercise some control over the sanctioning and allocation of money for group schemes and over their administration this was used as a device to control the expenditure of central funds. This is entirely untrue. If there is any better way in which the group water schemes can be administered I would be very anxious to hear of it. I would consider any constructive suggestion made to me very favourably. I accept that there can be delays which cause frustration to those who voluntarily involve themselves in the provision of water through group schemes.

At the same time I want to refute Deputy Hogan's charge. It is not true, as the development and expansion of group water schemes illustrate. In 1966-67 the total number of water and sewerage grants was around 6,000. That has risen to over 12,000 in 1971-72. Those figures do not show evidence of the exercise of undue control by the Department. The opposite is the case. I have emphasised many times the need for liaison between the local authority and the Department in carrying out group water schemes. I intend to improve on the present system where I find room for improvement. That is under consideration at present. If I can find some way of speeding up the processing of applications I will be very happy to do so.

The question of the burden of rates was raised. It is not directly relevant but I should like to put on the record of the House that the proportion of revenue expenditure of local authorities borne by rates has fallen from about 38 per cent in the early 1960s to 33 per cent in 1971-72 and central government grants now meet about 50 per cent of current local authority expenditure. This shows that the increasing burden referred to has been met by the State to a greater extent each succeeding year over the past number of years. I am not saying that the present rating system is perfect or that I or the Government are happy with it. I have expressed my intention of publishing a White Paper on suggested improvements and changes in the local financing taxation system. Consideration of this matter is reaching the final stages at present and I intend to publish as soon as I can the Government's and my own suggestions and recommendations for changes in what is known generally as the rating system.

Deputy Hogan questioned the provision of a grant-in-aid for An Foras Forbartha. This is the standard method of financing research institutions. An Foras Talúntais and the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards have received financial assistance from the State by way of grants-in-aid. If it is right for other research institutions I do not see why it should be questioned in the case of An Foras Forbartha.

Deputy Hogan raised the question of housing output here as compared with other countries. These comparisons can be odious and very misleading and can be quoted to suit particular arguments in comparing the standards here with those in countries throughout the world. I have tried to explain and I have it on the record of the House but it is no harm to put it on the record again, that it is very misleading to compare housing output in various countries on the basis of crude averages of dwelling units produced per 1,000 population, which is the basis usually used by Opposition speakers. Again, I should like to say that this completely ignores very critical aspects, such as the extent of the needs in various countries relative to the population, the size and quality of the dwelling unit produced, the family formation and structure here and in other countries. All these factors have to be taken into consideration.

One can accept that our houses are bigger and contain more rooms than those in practically any other European country, apart from the UK, and our family sizes, of course, are bigger than the size of the average family in European countries. So that in many of these countries a smaller size house will be acceptable to accommodate a smaller number of persons. The rate of household formation here is much lower than in most continental countries.

Taking all of these factors into consideration, our present unprecedentedly high rate of housing must, indeed, be regarded as satisfactory having regard to the scale of needs and the level of resources made available to meet those needs here.

We, as Deputies know, are working on a planned programme which was welcomed at the time it was announced in the White Paper, Housing in the Seventies, for the provision of houses up to the mid-1970s. The targets set then were to strive to achieve an output of 15,000 to 17,000 houses by 1975. I take some pride and satisfaction in the fact that in this present year which is now drawing to a close it seems that we will, in fact, achieve a rate of housing output of 15,500 houses, which exceeds the projections in the White Paper, Housing in the Seventies, published in 1969. Without being complacent, one is entitled to take some satisfaction from this rate of development and I do not think it should be played down here deliberately by the Opposition because, while it is the Government's desire and policy to strive to provide a home for everybody in need of it at a price or at a rent they can afford, and to achieve that aim within the limited resources available to us in this country, that may, in fact, prove quite a difficult task. To have achieved the rate of progress I have indicated and that number of houses at this stage is remarkable, having regard to all the difficulties. This is something in which the Government can take pride without being complacent. I look forward to a continuous increase in the output of housing over the next few years. We will continue to strive until we reach the situation where there will be no family waiting any undue length of time for a home over their heads at a price or a rent they can afford.

Deputy Tully referred to the question of sewerage schemes and suggested that there were delays in sanctioning such schemes. In 1967, the total value of water and sewerage schemes was estimated at £64 million, of which £20 million worth of schemes were regarded as urgent. The House will accept that with this sort of volume of work waiting in the queue for sanction, one cannot expect that they will all be sanctioned together, bearing in mind the financial limitations on any government. Despite that, we have been increasing the number of releases in the water and sewerage and sanitary services section at a steady and at a satisfactory pace over the past few two. This is a welcome trend and someyears, particularly in the last year or thing that I hope to be able to continue in the coming year and in the years that lie ahead.

The suggestion was made before here that grants should not be paid directly to the builder. I had a certain amount of sympathy with this suggestion as a builder is inclined to include the grant in the overall price of a house that he quotes and the impact of the grant and the benefit from the State is not so obvious to the purchaser. On the other hand, one must consider that the purchaser, whether the grant is obvious to him or not, is aware that he is benefiting from whatever grant he will qualify for, which is normally £325, and if the local authority gives a supplementary grant, as it does in most cases, that will bring the total amount of grants up to £650. The important thing is that the grant is paid and the purchaser benefits. Last year we allocated over 14,000 grants. It is clear that, purely for reasons of economy and good administration, there is a certain amount of saving in dealing directly with the builders. I do not think anyone would quibble or complain to any great extent. It makes good sense to pay the grant direct to a few hundred individual builders on behalf of their clients rather than to have the Department deal individually with each of the 10,000 people, roughly, who were paid grants or the 14,000 who were allocated grants last year. I do not think we should interfere with that practice. I am prepared to allow the situation to continue.

Deputy Tully made a suggestion in regard to the design of local authority houses. Of course, he made the suggestion about building Tipperary type houses in Meath and building Meath type houses in Tipperary and in this way introduce a variety of design in local authority houses. This is fair enough to a certain extent but one of the biggest criticisms of local authorities is that because of the house designs they use anybody can identify a local authority house. I would agree that there is, perhaps, too much uniformity in the designs being used for houses constructed for local authorities and I just want to inform the House that I am in fact, examining this matter of local authority house designs with a view to introducing some new house types and also to make it easier for local authorities to be assured that a range of house plans may be regarded as generally acceptable so that they will have a choice of a number of house plans, house types and designs. I should like to see greater variety introduced into local authority housing schemes. I would accept the point made generally by Deputy Tully. Although I would not accept his suggestion, I do accept the general intent behind the suggestion and hope to be able to implement it.

Deputy Tully also asked why not let the tenant of a local authority house have rate remission in the same way as a person who builds his own house or purchases a private house enjoys rate remission. The local authority tenant is probably being subsidised to the extent of about £5 or £6 a week or more, depending on the area in which he is residing and what local authority house he is living in. This subsidy, of course, comes from rates and from central funds. In one year this subsidisation of local authority houses comes to about £11 million. This money is well spent but if it were available for building new houses we could increase our housing programme considerably. However, that £11 million is not available and it is right to subsidise the rents of local authority tenants so that the payment of rent and rates will not become a financial burden on them and no one is deprived of a local authority house because of lack of means on his part. This policy will continue.

The tenant pays probably one-seventh or one-eighth of his income in rent. Rents for new houses average about £2 or £3 per week but in the case of a person who builds his own house, or purchases a private house, it costs him £8 per week or more in order to repay the loan. The amount of repayment depends on the area in which the house is located and the amount of deposit paid. In addition to paying £8 or £9 per week he must pay a deposit which ranges from £700 to £1,400 or more. Many of the people who purchase such houses and undertake these responsibilities have modest means. I do not think it could be reasonably argued that we should make new concessions in relation to rates on local authority houses because the tenants of such houses have the benefit of subsidies and cannot complain that the payment of rent and rates constitutes an excessive burden on them. The amount they must pay in rent is determined at the outset by their capacity to pay.

Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to the postponement of the local elections, and for some reason he used this as an argument that it was evidence of a taking-over by bureaucracy from democratically elected representatives. I do not follow the point he was making but I should like to state that postponement of the elections will give the House ample time to consider fully the reorganisation proposals I shall be bringing before the House. I think it is generally accepted that it would be unwise to proceed with local elections at this stage when it is evident that it would not be possible for me to have the legislation passed in time to enable arrangements to be made for the holding of elections under the new structures and systems I shall propose in the Bill. It would introduce an element of confusion into the situation which would not redound to the benefit of local democracy. Judging by the large number of questions I have been asked in the House regarding the local elections, I think it is an indication of the concern of Deputies that a decision should be made one way or another. Therefore, I have announced that I shall introduce legislation asking permission to postpone the elections for 12 months.

Reference was made to delays in the payment of housing grants. I have examined the situation and it is clear that on average the delays are very short. There may be long delays in individual cases but this is because some particular difficulty arises in these cases. Many people suspect that payment of grants is delayed because the Department are short of funds but this is not true. This Supplementary Estimate is evidence of the Government's desire to meet whatever commitments arise in relation to private house grants. Factors such as the weather play a major part in the actual output in any one year. We have had a reasonably dry year and there has been good weather for building and, consequently, much greater progress has been made than would normally be attained. In addition, there are strikes some years which can adversely affect construction but we have had a clear run this year, for which we are thankful. If this has meant that we must face an increase in the number of grants, we are prepared to do that and that is why I am asking the House for money.

Even with that explanation it is inevitable that with the tremendous increase in the number of new house grants allocated some delay will occur in dealing with those applications. I have taken steps to try to improve the situation and I gave a full explanation of the changes suggested in a reply recently to Deputy John O'Leary. In the short-term I have assigned four more inspectors to this work. On a wider front, with the co-operation of the Minister for Finance, I have had a comprehensive management-by-objectives exercise carried out by consultants in connection with the housing grant administration. The first major result of this operation will come into effect at the end of this month and I hope it will help to eliminate many of the administrative measures which hitherto had to be applied. It should result in speeding up consideration of applications for housing grants and I think it will be welcomed by all.

Deputy O'Donovan mentioned housing subsidies and I should like to explain to him the mechanics of subsidy calculations and how they work. Before the subsidy on any housing scheme can be decided we must know the final all-in cost. This may not be available for a considerable time after the house has been finished and, in fact, the tenancy could be granted long before we know the cost. The final cost must be worked out by the quantity surveyors and agreed with the builders and the local authority. As any person who has knowledge of the building industry will realise, it is not an easy matter to achieve this agreement.

In addition, the letting certificate must be examined in order to find out what houses qualify for the 66? per cent subsidy and what houses qualify for the 33? per cent subsidy. However, before the final cost is determined and the appropriate subsidy is calculated my Department pay something on account and later on the arrears are ascertained and are paid to the local authority. In the last year we have been speeding up the processing of all-in costs and subsidy calculations and it is because of this and the rising tempo of local authority housing that we want to pay out the £700,000 extra which is sought for local authorities in this Supplementary Estimate.

Deputy Tully mentioned a certain item and a particular manufacturing concern close to his constituency, although I think he said it is not in his constituency. I do not think it is. It has always been my policy on housing and water and sewerage operations to ensure that Irish-made materials are used as far as possible. I agree to the use of imported water pipes only where most exceptional circumstances apply and where I am satisfied that no native-made alternative is available.

I do not wish to advertise the product of the firm mentioned by Deputy Tully but I can assure him that the products of that firm have been widely used in every part of the country on local authority schemes, and particularly on group water schemes. They have proved to be of very great value and have proved satisfactory in operation. The fact is that they are not the only manufacturers of water and sewerage pipes in the country and there can be no question of giving them a monopoly position to the exclusion of other firms. I think Deputy Tully will accept that that is reasonable. The different products must compete with one another on the basis of quality as assessed by the professional advisers in relation to any job and the cost relative to alternatives.

At the moment all local authorities are operating under their own separate bye-laws. I intend to introduce a national building regulation which will provide some uniformity of standards for all materials used in house construction, water and sewerage schemes and other local authority works. This may also assist in better consideration being given to many products which, because of antiquated bye-laws, are not acceptable at the moment.

Deputy Finn mentioned the question of prohibiting the construction of houses adjacent to national primary roads. He suggested that people should be allowed to build houses any distance they like out from the towns and villages. He mentioned two and three miles. In a way he seemed to contradict a point he was making earlier when he was expressing some concern about the provision of water and sewerage schemes in the smaller towns. If he is anxious to have these facilities provided in the smaller towns I fail to see why he is encouraging people to live outside these towns and away from where the facilities are to be provided. The same would apply to all the other services and facilities which are available in towns. By building a house too far out a person is removing himself and his family further and further from such services as electricity, shops, schools, churches, community halls and local meeting places, and that is not the best forward planning.

The only place where I have indicated to the local authorities that I would expect them to be rigid in applying planning principles in this matter was on arterial roads, our national primary roads in particular and our national secondary roads.

Mr. Finn

The message I was conveying——

Mr. Molloy

I think I understand the message the Deputy was conveying.

Mr. Finn

I was talking about a young man who could buy a site out from a town for £500 less because of the speculators.

Mr. Molloy

I am absolutely opposed to the construction of houses adjacent to national primary roads where they would necessitate the creation of a new opening on to an arterial road. It must be remembered that it is national policy, supported by the community, that there should be an investment in constructing good traffic corridors between all the major centres. This is of particular importance in the area Deputy Finn and I represent, in the west of Ireland. The development, industrially and otherwise, of the west is greatly dependent on the existence of good corridors of communication between us and the major centres, and particularly between us and the capital city and the major port.

It is right that there should be substantial capital investment in the construction of these roads. Not only will this help to facilitate the expansion and development of rural areas, and areas outside the large urban developments, but it is also essential from the point of view of traffic safety and from the point of view of facilitating the motorists and making it more easy to travel between these areas. The principal point I am concerned about is traffic safety. The research institute in my Department. An Foras Forbartha, and people in other countries who have done research work into this matter have come to the same conclusion. The facts show a direct relationship between the number of persons killed in motor accidents, the numbers seriously injured and the number of accidents taking place, and the existence of openings on to arterial roads.

It is quite obvious that, if you are building a road up to a certain standard to take heavy traffic at a fairly steady pace, it is very foolish to encourage people to build houses right beside that road. If they have to drive in and out of a gate they are interfering with the free flow of traffic which is expected to move rapidly if the roads are to be properly utilised and utilised to their full capacity. Each entry and exit from these houses is interfering with that traffic flow and is a danger to those travelling on the road and to the person entering or exiting from the house.

Worse still, in these houses young families will be coming along. The children will go out to play and this is a great cause of concern and distress to mothers of young children living in houses beside a heavy traffic road. They have no peace from one end of the day to the other. If a child has gone out of their sight they are worried that he may have gone on to a main road where the traffic is flying past at 60 miles an hour. The number of children who have been killed in this type of situation is quite substantial. The number of adults who have been involved in accidents is there in the statistics.

It is very good policy to prohibit the construction of any house which will necessitate a new opening on to these arterial roads. National primaries consist of about 1,600 miles of road and national secondaries consist of about the same. We must compare that limited mileage, which is the most essential arterial road network in the country, with the roughly 50,000 miles of other type roads where the problem of fast moving traffic does not arise to the same extent. I am directing the local authorities to be rigid in applying this prohibition only in the case of national primaries and national secondaries. I have not specified the same rigidity in relation to other roads.

If Deputy Finn and his colleagues in the Mayo County Council have used section 4 about eight times recently, as he said, to build houses against the best advice of all traffic engineers and those concerned with and interested in road safety and the preservation of life, future generations will not thank him. I will go no further than that. Using the cost of building houses as a factor to justify the building of houses in these locations is a disgrace. If a person wants to build a house outside a town he does not have to build it right beside the arterial road. He can seek planning permission to build his house beside one of the county roads or byroads which have existing accesses to the national primary roads. If there are no other objections, such as unsuitability of soil for septic tanks or gravely interfering with an amenity, he can obtain planning permission in these locations and he will not interfere with the free flow of traffic and he will not create a further hazard on our major traffic roads.

Mr. Finn

Do I take it that the Minister will prohibit farmers who have land along theses roads from building houses?

Mr. Molloy

Deputy Finn knows that the only exception to this recommendation is where a farmer is replacing his own house and has not got another suitable location other than adjacent to the arterial road. In a case such as that an exception should be made. An exception could also be made, possibly, in the case of a member of a family who was working on the farm with the parent and who wanted to build a house for himself— for instance, a son getting married. That would be in a case where the son was working on a farm on which there was no other site available and there would be no alternative but to build a house adjacent to the local primary road. They are the only two cases where exceptions can be made, and only in extreme cases after a thorough investigation has been made of the man's property to ensure there is not another suitable site which would be alongside a by-road instead of the main arterial road. I consider that to be reasonable.

Therefore, I appeal to the Mayo County Council and to other local authorities throughout the country who, because individuals bring pressure on them, concede these matters. These would be first of all interfering with or dissipating the investment the community is making towards the construction of proper and safe roads. Secondly, they would be enabling a person to construct a house where he would be living in constant danger to his own life and to the lives of his family.

On the question of unserviced cottages which was mentioned here the other day by way of parliamentary question, Deputy Fitzpatrick of Cavan tried to convey that I was in favour of local authorities building houses without water or sewerage. I want to refute that absolutely. Certainly I am not in favour of any local authority building such houses. What I was asked was whether there are any circumstances in which I would be prepared to sanction the building of houses by local authorities without these services, and I said that only in wholly exceptional circumstances would I give such sanction. I repeat that. It is understandable that this could happen from time to time, but the number of such houses sanctioned in any year is negligible and does not justify the comments of Deputy Fitzpatrick. He was trying to mislead the House and the public.

It could happen that a person would apply to a local authority to construct a house for him. That person would have stated that he was living in bad circumstances in a rural area and was not in a position to avail of the grants provided to enable him build a house himself. Many such people, badly in need of houses, will not accept houses in locations suggested to them by the local authority. Many of them insist that the local authority build houses in certain areas. In very few cases, hardly any in a year, it may happen that a person would insist on a house being built in an isolated area where, because of subsoil conditions, it would be impossible to construct a septic tank and where, because of the absence of piped water, it is not possible to lay on a piped water supply. The number in any year is so small that it is completely dishonest to give the impression that I would encourage or approve of local authorities building houses without modern amenities.

There is one other point I wish to deal with before I conclude. It is in relation to the guaranteed order project, sometimes called "the low-cost housing scheme". The proper title of this is the guaranteed order project and I would much prefer that people would use that title because the other conveys the impression of cheap prefabricated, short-life dwellings, which is not the position at all. The main benefit from this project is a reduction in the cost per unit because the builder has been given a guarantee of so many houses in a certain period and he can accordingly organise his building team and his building programme in such a way that he can make many savings which would not arise if he did not have that guarantee. This is why we are getting the savings and it is why people who operate under this scheme are in the main large builders.

There was a suggestion that smaller builders were being squeezed out. This suggestion, I want to tell Deputy Tully, is not on. I appreciate as much as anybody the invaluable contribution that small contractors play in getting houses built at reasonable cost and in preserving an element of competition, to keep the bigger men on their toes. The guaranteed order project is intended to get some of the bigger schemes organised, planned and completed more quickly than they would be under traditional arrangements and at what I consider to be competitive prices. During the current three-year period of the project, 15,000 houses will be built by local authorities. Of these, 4,000 houses will be constructed under the project and 11,000 will be built on the basis of ordinary tendering procedure.

These 11,000, compared with 10,404 rented houses built in the three years before the project got under way, indidicate that there should be no reduction in the volume of work available to contractors who are not participating in the project. The project is giving local authorities good value for the money they invest in housing and the prices under the project are between 5 per cent and 10 per cent below current tender prices. I suggest that Deputy Tully was slightly unfair in the price he quoted.

Mr. Tully

I quoted only one price.

Mr. Molloy

That is dangerous. Things must be put on an equal footing. I think Deputy Tully compared tender prices of a year ago with prices quoted this year. There has been roughly a 10 per cent increase in prices in the building industry in that period.

Mr. Tully

It could be nearly a year ago. The matter is with the Department of Local Government.

Mr. Molloy

We must compare like with like. We are getting a substantial saving which is to the benefit of the community—the taxpayer and the ratepayer. This is something which should be supported and I would have expected tremendous support from the Labour Party. Only in this way can I use the resources available to me to the maximum effect and get the greatest number of houses built. Therefore I am pleased the project has been so successful. As Deputy Moore said, in the suburbs of Dublin where the scheme was announced only recently — construction started in August—this week persons are getting ready to move into these houses where tenancies will be allocated quite soon. It is an indication of the remarkable progress being made. The scheme has been responsible for the tremendous increase in the number of houses completed this year.

Also, of course, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of private houses being built. This is indicative of the strength of the economy and of the building industry. The number of house grants allocated by the Department is a very good indicator of future trends in housing construction. The number to be allocated in this financial year will be for 14,000 houses. This makes me very hopeful of not alone achieving the same figures next year but of exceeding them.

Vote put and agreed to.

Estimate reported and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 16 Mar 1972

Committee on Finance. - Vote 26: Local Government.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Mar 1972