Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Nov 1973

Vol. 269 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 26: Local Government.

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £27,853,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1974, 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 net Estimate of £27,853,000 will be further increased by two supplementary amounts totalling £5,439,000 for which I intend to seek the approval of the House at the close of this debate and to which I will refer later. When account is taken of these additional amounts, the total net Estimate will be £33,292,000 or an increase of £12,046,000 over the total provision made in respect of 1972-73 including the Supplementary Estimate of £5,671,000 for that year which I moved on the 28th March last. The biggest increase is in subhead E. 1. One of the Supplementary Estimates for which I will be seeking the approval of the House at the end of this debate includes a sum of £2,039,000 which, together with the present amount in subhead E.1., will bring the total provision for housing subsidy this year to £11,401,000 or £5,574,000 over the final provision for housing subsidy last year.

Of this increase a sum of over £3,300,000 is attributable to the first phase of the positive action taken by the Government to relieve the burden of local rates by transferring certain housing charges from local to central taxation and a sum of £1,610,000 arises from the new differential renting scheme which has operated from the 1st July last. As housing subsidy is now a contribution towards the loss on local authority housing and not a contribution towards loan charges under the Housing Act, 1966, it is necessary to change the description of the subhead E.1. to read "Housing Subsidy:— a contribution on the loss on local authority housing". The subhead also provides for a substantial payment in respect of arrears of subsidies long overdue to local authorities.

In addition to the extra amount for housing subsidy, the first of the Supplementary Estimates includes a provision of £1,000,000 to meet claims from building societies arising from the Government's decision to make a temporary subvention to help the societies to attract additional investments and to keep interest on mortgages at a lower rate than would otherwise have been necessary.

The second housing subhead E.2. which relates to Private Housing Grants also shows a substantial increase. The amount required is £8,000,000 or £1,500,000 more than the final provision made for grants in 1972-73.

Other major increases over last year's provision include an additional £456,000 in subhead F, mainly for subsidy towards loan charges on water and sewerage schemes and an increase of £890,000 in the grant to the Road Fund.

I will, also, be seeking approval to a second Supplementary Estimate £2.4 million to augment the grant to the Road Fund, bringing the total grant to £5.69 million, or £3.29 million above last year's provision.

The overall increase of £12,046,000 in the present Estimates—including both Supplementary Estimates—on the total provision made last year including the supplementary amount voted last March, underlines the significance which the Government attach to local government and to the principal services being provided for the benefit of the community.

The amounts included in the Estimates, however, reveal only part of the story. To get a more accurate picture of the decisions taken by the Government to provide adequate funds for vital services, it is necessary to take account also of the extra £25.15 million which has been provided in respect of non-voted capital for housing and other local services over the corresponding total provision in respect of 1972-73.

Housing is one of the key areas in my portfolio which the Government have singled out for special attention because they are satisfied that the approach to this major national problem has been half-hearted and inadequate, particularly over the past decade. An average of less than 15,000 houses was built annually over the past six years when the total required to meet the urgent needs of families in unfit and overcrowded conditions, to replace condemned houses and to cater for new household formation should have been at least 20,000 a year. Published figures indicate that in 1972-73 a total of 21,647 dwellings were completed. This, however gives a false picture of output in that year.

The money provided by the previous administration in 1971-72 to finance private housing grants was much lower than was necessary to pay the grants promptly when they fell due. In consequence, a liability totalling £626,000 had to be carried forward into 1972-73. In other words, more than 2,000 new house grants which should have been paid in 1971-72, because the houses benefiting had been fully completed before 31st March, 1972, were not paid until the opening weeks of 1972-73. Had adequate finance been provided by the Government in 1971-72, the statistics of new house grants would have been approximately 11,667 in 1971-72 instead of the 9,677 recorded and completions would have been 12,615 instead of 14,615 as recorded. To put the general statistics right I would like to place on record the more probable total of 17,920 dwellings completed in 1971-72 and an overall output of about 19,650 in 1972-73.

I may say in passing that even though completions and expenditure for 1972-73 on grant houses were unrealistically inflated by the carry forward from the preceding year the number of grants I paid in the first six months of this year was 1,748 greater than the figure for the corresponding period last year and the total amount disbursed in grants under subhead E.2 was £523,000 higher than expenditure in the half-year ended 30th September, 1972.

When we examine the national housing situation, it is clear why the Government views it with disquiet. We have probably the oldest housing stock of any country in Western Europe and can expect a high rate of obsolescence. The rate of family formation in Ireland has been rising annually; most pressing of all, however, is the extent of the needs of families living in bad conditions, many for years past.

These considerations put the record of the former Administration in its proper perspective. About 89,900 new houses were completed over the past six years But, of these, some 35,000 merely replaced existing dwellings lost through demolition, obsolescence or conversion and 32,000 approximately were needed to cater for new household formation. Even if we put the most optimistic estimate possible on the number of dwellings created by the conversion of large houses into flats, it follows that the balance of output available to cater for the backlog of acute housing needs averaged less than 4,000 a year. This is what the housing emergency is about.

The situation is particularly critical in the case of people waiting for rehousing by local authorities. House building in this sector has lagged far behind private building. Last year, for example, local authorities completed fewer than 5,800 houses, representing only one-quarter of all house completions. The first Coalition Government in 1950-51—their second year of office—produced 7,787 local authority houses, or practically two-thirds of the total number built that year.

Before the change of Government, the capital allocation provisionally made for local authority housing in the present year amounted to £27 million compared with £25.38 million spent in 1972-73. This capital would have been sufficient to produce about 5,400 houses. The incoming Government immediately increased the allocation by £5 million and if further capital is needed to support the local authority programme, it will be forthcoming. Because of the limited number of houses in progress at the beginning of the year, the best that can be achieved by way of expanded output in 1973-74 is 6,500 dwellings —less than we would desire, but still 1,100 more than the total for which finance was being provided by the last Government. It is our intention to maintain a steady expansion of the local authority housing programme with the objective of producing 8,000 dwellings not later than 1975-76. The need for this expansion will be clear when I tell the House that more than 30,000 families have sought rehousing by local authorities while the authorities have only 10,000 dwellings under construction to meet the demand.

It would be difficult to bring about this increase in output within the normal resources of local authorities. In the circumstances, I have in preparation a special emergency programme, using the National Building Agency for the purpose, which aims to produce 10,000 houses over the next five years, additional to the normal on-going operations of local authorities. I have strengthened the resources of the agency to enable it to provide the necessary supplementary technical and management resources to get this programme under way.

This new emergency programme will replace and will differ from the guaranteed order project used by the previous Government. No new commitments will be entered into under that project and when schemes in progress or pending have been completed it will lapse. I appreciate that the project was experimental in nature. As it developed, serious shortcomings inherent in its concept and procedures came to light. I can assure the House that these will not be repeated in the new programme.

The guaranteed order project was launched as a "low cost" housing-programme, the primary objective evidently being to pare costs down to a minimum by reducing standards of construction and accommodation. That is an aspect that must go.

That was never true, of course.

It did happen, of course.

It was never true.

Let the Deputy look at the houses if he wants the evidence. It is my intention that the houses to be built by local authorities henceforth will be of a standard equivalent to that accepted as normal for private grant houses and will be in no way inferior in accommodation and amenities simply because they are part of the local authority housing programme. To ensure that this aim will be implemented and to give much needed variety in finish and appearance to local authority schemes, I have had a wide range of architect-designed plans prepared, and these have recently been circulated for the guidance of local authorities, their technical advisers and contractors.

Another feature which must be changed is the practice of using local authorities and their tenants as guinea-pigs for experiments with constructional methods and materials which have not been tested in actual use over a sufficiently long period in this country. I do not set my face against innovations or prefabrication, but where houses can be built in traditional materials at no greater expense, and with little extra time involved, as compared with system building, I think that local authorities and their new tenants or tenant-purchasers would opt for the more traditional job.

In the special emergency programme I also intend to get away from the situation in which a great proportion of the available work was cornered by a small number of major contractors. I hope to see the work spread over many contractors, especially builders who have established a good reputation but who have been used to operating only in a particular county or general area. As the net is spread wider, it is essential also to introduce the element of genuine competition which was missing from the guaranteed order project. I am arranging that adequate competition will be introduced and will be maintained right up to the stage at which a firm contract is being decided. Finally, I want to emphasise that the new programme will supplement the normal on-going programmes of local authorities. It will not—as was the aim with the guaranteed order project—supersede the work of local authorities. I am depending on local authorities to step up their own operations as much as possible because maximum co-operation by all concerned will be essential to achieve the Government's objective of 8,000 local authority houses annually as soon as that can be secured. I will also be depending on local authorities to assist in the matter of sites in getting the special emergency programme under way quickly.

This principle of co-operation rather than imposition will apply also to the use of the National Building Agency in connection with the special programme. I intend to use the resources of the agency simply to supplement those normally available to local authorities and not to replace them. To avoid a repetition of criticism about the quality of technical supervision by the agency, arrangements will be evolved for the joint supervision of work in progress under which the local authority can be directly associated with this important aspect of operations.

I have dealt at some length with these special arrangements because I want to make it clear, especially to local authorities, that they are not going to be saddled with another "low cost" or guaranteed order project in another guise.

I cannot over-emphasise the extent to which the expansion in local authority housing output, to which the National Coalition Government is committed, is contingent upon the wholehearted support and co-operation of local authorities. Expansion of output will depend also on the availability of adequate land which is serviced or capable of ready servicing. It will call for special efforts by technical advisers and officers of local authorities and on an efficient marshalling of the resources of the construction industry.

We need the help and co-operation of local authorities also to achieve the Government's aim to give a new deal generally to the under-privileged sections of the community. The new and improved social welfare benefits provided for in the budget must be complemented by support services such as housing, home help and nursing care for the aged, the infirm and the disabled persons in our society. We should no longer tolerate the attitude that seeks to institutionalise such persons—putting the need for special care conveniently out of sight and so out of mind.

So far as housing authorities are concerned, I know that they have made a fair effort to implement recommendations made some time ago by the interDepartmental Committee on the Care of the Aged. I am not satisfied, however, that enough is being done for these our senior citizens. It should be obvious that community care and involvement, with adequate numbers of specially designed dwellings, offers a far more Christian—and incidentally, less expensive—way of caring for under-privileged classes, than shutting away in institutions elderly persons and those physically handicapped.

I have issued a special appeal to local authorities to organise a combined housing, health and social welfare approach to this problem, and, in particular, to take the lead in the provision of the necessary living accommodation without which little else can be achieved. I believe that where specially designed housing—such as sheltered housing in the case of the aged—is provided, our health and social welfare services will be ready to provide support services. In fact, it has been mentioned to me that some of the health boards might provide a warden service where provision is made by local authorities for special housing units for the elderly. I would warmly commend this approach and I have the fullest backing of the Tánaiste in seeking a development of this type of arrangement in all health board areas. The goodwill and involvement of voluntary bodies, will, on past experiences, also be assured.

Predictably, housing problems are most extensive and pressing in Dublin city and county and it is in that area that we must specially strive for a combined effort by all involved, especially the local authorities, to make a quick and lasting impact on the needs situation.

Dublin Corporation completed a review last November of the needs position in the city. In response to public advertisements, nearly 7,000 applications for rehousing were submitted to the corporation and 5,300 of these were accepted as qualifying.

In the first six months of the present financial year the corporation completed 680 houses and flats and at 30th September they had 2,418 more dwellings under construction. Further projects are in planning and the corporation are aiming at a completion figure of about 1,500 houses in 1973/74. Obviously, however, the situation calls for emergency measures over and above the normal municipal programme to ensure that the big number of families seeking proper accommodation are not obliged to wait for unreasonably long periods.

Dublin County Council are making great efforts to increase their housing output and, by utilising the National Building Agency over the past two years, have made very creditable advances in the number of dwellings built. The council are to be commended on their foresight in building up a reserve of land for a continued programme of construction for some years to come. Because of difficulties experienced in terms of technical resources, they have entrusted a substantial number of new schemes to the agency and this should lead to an early upsurge in the county programme.

Dún Laoghaire Corporation have exhausted their reserve of building land, but still have a substantial housing need outstanding. The corporation are endeavouring to get further land, but their situation is one of considerable difficulty.

The Dublin area constitutes from the point of view of housing the greatest single challenge which we have. I have been reviewing the overall housing position in that area and I am extremely concerned at the continuing extent of the urgent housing needs in the city in particular. A pressing need exists for a major expansion of the existing housing programme if the backlog of families needing accommodation is to be cleared within a reasonable time. There is no hope of achieving the desired result unless a special emergency programme is undertaken and I am satisfied that this involves closer co-ordination of the planning and services programme in the city, the county and in Dún Laoghaire Borough. The on-going programme of housing developments in the fringe areas must be supplemented by programmes designed to conserve and improve the existing housing stock in central city areas. Central city areas which have been traditionally residential in character must be made to live again and new housing developments must be provided in these areas.

Following discussions with the Dublin City and County Manager regarding the measures for greater co-ordination, and in consultation with the elected representatives in the city, county and Dún Laoghaire, an officer has been appointed with responsibilities for securing the necessary co-ordination. The officer has had delegated to him by the City and County Manager the responsibility for organising and implementing the housing construction programmes in the city, county and Dún Laoghaire including the provision of new housing in central city areas. It is his responsibility to acquire all the land required for housing and ancillary purposes in accordance with programmes adopted by the council in each area. He has the task of identifying and remedying as far as possible any deficiencies in the services, including planning, water supply, drainage, roads, which are likely to cause delay in the production of housing.

Housing problems in Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford also need special attention. Mention must also be made in this context of towns such as Drogheda, Dundalk and Wexford which have substantial housing problems. Plans are under way for a combined attack on these problems by the local authorities and the National Building Agency, under the emergency supplementary programme.

It is understandable that rural housing problems should be overshadowed by the scale and intensity of the needs situation in the large urban areas, but particular problems and some acute needs do exist in rural areas.

For example, a county council may want to house a family living in an unfit or overcrowded dwelling. The father may work in the rural area and the only dwelling to meet his particular circumstances satisfactorily would be a cottage built on an individual site. Numbers of such cases arise throughout the country. I know that county councils experience difficulty in getting competent contractors to tender—even for numbers of single cottages. I would like to see special measures being adopted to overcome this particular difficulty. Where a continuing programme of rural cottages is anticipated, a council should consider establishing a direct labour unit or else negotiate with competent small builders or teams of tradesmen to build on a labour contract basis, under which the council would provide the necessary materials and pay for the labour input on a regular fortnightly or monthly basis. This labour contract arrangement has proved highly successful in some areas and could usefully be adopted elsewhere.

And since I have referred to rural cottages, there is another matter which merits mention. Where cottages have been vested, it is common for the purchasing tenant to seek the consent of the county council to assign part of the cottage plot to a son or other relative to enable him to build a house there. Some councils adopt a restrictive attitude towards such requests. In view of the difficulty in obtaining housing sites, I would be glad to see councils dealing as liberally as possible with applications to subdivide plots, especially where this is intended to facilitate a relative of the vested owner in housing himself.

There is one final point which I want to make about local authority housing operations. Deputies will remember that this is a point on which I expressed strong criticism while in Opposition—that is the undue degree of central control which has eroded the concept of local democracy, and has proved so frustrating to members and officials of local authorities. I have in mind the shuttling of plans and tenders for housing schemes between local authorities and the Department. I want to see an end to this as far as possible. I have already accelerated the pace of devolution to local authorities of responsibility for the planning and execution of housing schemes by transferring to local authorities the making of decisions in regard to schemes of up to 60 dwellings. When I see how this works out in practice, I intend to consider what further measures in devolution should be taken.

I appreciate that the financing of forward land acquisition has been a major problem for local authorities. Heretofore, the authorities have been encouraged to carry bridging finance for land acquisition on overdraft, but access to long-term moneys from the Local Loans Fund has been granted to a few authorities where special circumstances applied. Of its nature, land acquisition should require only bridging finance and I intend asking all local authorities to carry the cost of land acquisition on short-term loans or overdraft, pending the charging of the appropriate amounts to the loans for particular housing or other schemes. I am prepared to allow local authorities to include in the capital cost of schemes for loan purposes the full cost of servicing such temporary borrowing.

No housing programme can make progress unless land can be acquired. In this connection I intend to review the operation of the compulsory purchase order system with a view to removing some of the unreasonable obstacles which obstruct the purchase of land by local authorities for house building.

The provision of houses is our primary task. But we also have a commitment in regard to the management of houses provided by local authorities. The National Coalition Government undertook to remove the unjust aspects of differential rents and to introduce a fair national system of tenant-purchase. The reduction of the rent burden on local authority tenants will inevitably demand increased subsidy. This highlights the importance of the commitment by the Government to assume responsibility on a phased basis for the full cost of subsidising local authority housing. The first step in that direction was taken last March when the Government announced that the rate to be levied by each local authority in the current financial year for housing purposes could be reduced by 25 per cent, as compared with the rate levied for the purpose last year. The effect of this move is reflected in the increase in the provision under subhead E.1. of the Department's Vote, from £5.827 million last year to a total of £11.401 million in 1973-74.

Deputies will be aware that, with the approval of the Government, I have introduced a new national renting system for local authority dwellings. The new scheme applies uniformly throughout the country from 1st July, 1973, to all tenants on differential renting scales and supercedes all existing income-related rent schemes. The principal features of the new scheme are—overtime, shift allowances and bonus payments will no longer be taken into account for rent purposes; income tax on basic pay and social welfare contributions will be allowable as a deduction in assessing rent; maximum rents will be frozen for a period of three years; tenants on a basic income of £25 a week or less will be assessed on a graded scale to ensure that their rent payments will be reduced to a reasonable level; a member of the household who has been paying rent as "principal earner" for at least one year before the tenant dies and who succeeds to the tenancy may do so without change in the differential rent scheme applicable to the dwelling.

The scheme is particularly beneficial to tenants on low incomes and under the terms of the scheme many pensioners and others in receipt of social welfare payments will be required to pay only a nominal amount in respect of rent and rates. Tenants who work long hours and whose incomes contain a large overtime element also benefit substantially under the new scheme. The rent reductions do not reflect the effects of the Government's decision to transfer to the Exchequer from the rates a substantial part of the cost of health services and housing subsidies to which I have already referred and which generally reduced the rates element in tenants' weekly outgoings. The new rent scheme meets the main demands of the tenants and has been widely welcomed. I have also, with the approval of the Government, introduced new terms of sale for existing local authority houses.

Up to now the sales terms that applied required local authorities to base the selling price of houses on their market or replacement value less a discount of 3 per cent for each year of continuous tenancy subject to a maximum of 30 per cent in built-up areas and 45 per cent in other areas.

The principal features of the new sale terms are—house prices will be based on their original cost to the local authority, converted to current money values using a table prepared by the Central Statistics Office; the gross price in current money terms may be reduced by a tenancy discount of 3 per cent a year subject to a maximum of 30 per cent in built-up areas and 45 per cent in other areas; an amount equivalent to the maximum State and supplementary grants —£650—will be deducted from the net price; an amount equivalent to the capitalised value of rates remission calculated in relation to the valuation of a standard local authority house— £250—will also be allowed off the net price; where a member of the household who was bona fide residing with the tenant for at least 12 months prior to the tenant's death and succeeds to the tenancy, he may be allowed tenancy discount for the period of tenancy of the previous tenant.

As the new sale terms apply to some very old houses it was necessary to fix a minimum net sale price of £100 per house.

In the case of newly built dwellings, a tenant on being allocated a house can be given the option of either renting or purchasing it at cost price, less State and local authority supplementary grants, where appropriate, and a rate remission. Nearly all local authorities operate this option system.

The new sale terms meet in full the commitment of the National Coalition Government, announced in their 14-point plan, to introduce a fair system of tenant purchase which would take full account of a sitting tenant's rights and give credit for them in the calculation of the sale price. In devising the new terms of sale I had due regard to the views put forward by all interested parties.

I am confident that the new terms of sale, which provide tenants with a better opportunity of owning the houses in which they live, will encourage the spread of home ownership. Apart from giving a family a stake in the community, experience has shown it encourages high standards of maintenance and a general concern for the environmental standards of the neighbourhood.

Local authorities have been giving valuable assistance to the private housing sector. Their contribution towards activity in that sector was given a stimulus by the changes which I introduced in recent months in the conditions subject to which local authority house purchase loans and supplementary grants are made. The maximum loan which may be advanced was increased from £3,800 in the county boroughs, Dublin county and the boroughs of Dún Laoghaire and Galway and £3,400 in other areas to £4,500 in all areas. The qualifying yearly income limit for the loans was also increased from £1,800 to £2,350. The income limit is being kept under review in the light of changes in wages and salaries of the categories of persons covered by this scheme. No income limit applies in the case of a tenant of a local authority dwelling who surrenders his tenancy on getting a loan.

The yearly income for supplementary grants was increased from £1,500 to £1,950. An allowance of £100 for each dependant up to a limit of £400 applies, giving an effective income limit of £2,350 a year.

The provision for housing in the 1973-74 public capital programme will total £68.1 million as compared with an expenditure of £46.16 million in 1972-73. The provision includes £25.49 million for local authority loans and supplementary grants. This contrasts sharply with a total of only £12.21 million provided for the loans and grants scheme last year—a figure which had increased by only £520,000 over the preceding three years, evidence, if such were needed, of the manner in which these schemes had been allowed to get out of touch with the needs of the deserving classes they were intended to assist.

Building societies have been the subject of considerable publicity in recent months, much of it, unfortunately, ill-informed. I feel it appropriate, therefore, to set out some facts about the societies and about my policy in relation to them. The first point that should be made is that the societies have been playing a vital role in the development of the housing programme. Last year they advanced about £43 million. This was nearly five times the value of their loan advances five years ago.

The building societies have been the means of financing the growth in the housing programme over the last five years and their expansion has been such that the housing programme has become heavily dependent on them. This is something that no Minister with responsibility for housing, no Government, and, indeed, no public representative concerned about housing progress can afford to ignore. This virtual dominance of the societies in private housing and the extent to which the financing of private housing has moved away from the direct control of the Government are factors that must be taken into account in the formulation of housing policies.

In particular, it was clear to me from an early stage that we needed to develop our relationship with the societies so that they could be kept in closer touch with the Government's housing objectives which, I know, they desire. We also need to develop, in conjunction with the societies, better methods of forecasting trends in their resources and of assessing the implications of these trends for public expenditure on house purchase loans and for housing output generally. It is important to aim at continuity in the availability of mortgage facilities so that builders and manufacturers can plan ahead with reasonable confidence of growth in the total supply of mortgage finance at a rate that can be sustained without putting undue pressure on house prices or on the availability of resources.

Shortly after assuming office the Government took action to control the rate of interest on building society loans. Briefly, what we did was to stipulate that the special taxation arrangements which are operated by the Revenue Commissioners in relation to the societies would henceforth be available only to societies which charged a rate of interest on house purchase loans that did not exceed a rate specified by me. The rate which I specified for this purpose was 10 per cent. I am glad to say that all the societies co-operated in and supported the action which I took. This action represented a first step in the positive use of the special taxation arrangements applicable to the societies as a means of promoting housing policy.

This has been a unique year in financial markets and the repercussions of the world-wide increases in interest rates inevitably affected the societies. By their very nature, the societies must remain competitive with other savings media if they are to continue to discharge their vital role in providing housing finance. This has meant that in the current year they have had to raise the interest rate paid by them on shares from 5½ per cent to 6 per cent in March, from 6 per cent to 7 per cent in May, and again from 7 per cent to 8 per cent in September. These rises in interest rates could not be absorbed by the societies since effectively they do not have sources of income available to them other than the mortgage loan repayments and interest on trustee investments.

Recognising the societies' dilemma and conscious of their importance to the housing programme, the Government took special action in May last to help them to stay competitive and thus attract an adequate flow of funds, while at the same time maintaining the mortgage rate at 10 per cent. For this purpose, the Government introduced a special subvention which enabled the societies to offer an additional 1 per cent on shares without creating a need for a house purchase loan rate above 10 per cent. The subvention helped to boost the flow of funds to the societies but, regrettably, further increases in the general level of interest rates in Ireland and elsewhere, which occurred in August and September, tended once again to make them uncompetitive in the attraction of savings. The Government considered the new situation and concluded that there was no option open to the societies but to increase their investment rate still further, to 8 per cent. Inevitably, this further increase in the societies' outgoings had to be reflected in a new mortgage rate.

Nobody regrets more than I the need for the 11¼ per cent rate which in most cases will come into force on 1st January next. I would, however, ask Deputies to bear in mind that the issue involved is really one of priorities. I know that there are borrowers who will find it difficult to meet their higher outgoings but I also know that a big proportion of them are persons who have lived in their houses for a number of years and whose outgoings are now very low in relation to their incomes and to the value of their houses. Should we further subsidise these persons—who are already housed; who have benefited and are still benefiting from the special subvention introduced in May last; and who in many cases benefited in the past from the whole range of State and local authority housing aids—at the expense of those who have not yet been able to become home owners? This really is the issue and I do not think that any one should try to sidestep it.

I can understand the frustration of those who are considering action to withhold mortgage repayments from the societies, but I cannot say strongly enough how ill-advised I consider this action to be. In the ultimate, it can only damage their own interests, which are different from the interests of ordinary tenants and involve the equity stake which they have in their houses, their right to sell, and—if repayments are withheld—an increase in their total mortgage liability and a deferral of the date on which they can become full owners of their houses. I am hopeful that interest rates will come down in time and, if they do, I have no doubt that the societies will bring down their rates as quickly as their circumstances allow.

There has been some criticism of the Government's decision to ask the societies not to approve any loans for the time being for previously occupied houses or any loans in excess of £7,500. It was made clear all along, however, that these were temporary measures designed to ensure that in the short-term as high a proportion as possible of loan approvals issued by the societies would relate to new houses of a fairly modest standard. I am glad to say that the inflow of funds to the societies and the scale of loan approvals have improved significantly in recent months and the Government has now decided that the restrictions on loans for previously occupied houses can be lifted as from the 1st December, 1973. I will expect the societies to advance at least two-thirds of all loans in respect of new houses and to retain the £7,500 ceiling on all loans until further notice.

I would like to refer briefly in passing to the confusion which has existed about the availability of loans from local authorities for previously-occupied houses. These loans are available to persons of limited means who need rehousing and who are buying cheaper houses. This is not a new policy and is, in fact, fully in accordance with the advice given to local authorities in June last to the effect that loans for previously occupied houses would be given to persons who were unable to obtain loans from commercial agencies and whose circumstances otherwise necessitated their being rehoused by the local authority.

It is essential that building societies should be enabled to operate within a legal framework which meets present-day requirements and is appropriate to the value and volume of their activities. I am, therefore, giving special attention to the need for new legislation to replace the existing Building Societies Acts—which have remained virtually unchanged since the 19th century—and I hope to have definite proposals in this regard ready fairly soon.

I mentioned earlier that I intend to move a supplementary estimate of £1,000,000 to meet the special interest subsidy to the societies. This will meet claims in respect of the period from 23rd May last, when the subvention was introduced to 31st December, 1973. It is unlikely that audited claims relating to the period from 1st January, 1974, will have to be met during the current financial year.

Life assurance companies have been a source of house purchase loans for many years, but their activities in this respect have shown no growth at all in the last few years and are, if anything, tending to decline. In 1972-73, for example they approved a total of only 1,534 loans, compared with 2,286 in 1968-69. I appreciate that house purchase loans are incidental to the main business of the companies, but some increase in real terms could reasonably have been expected having regard to the growth in the companies' operations generally and the agreements which the non-Irish companies made with the Minister for Industry and Commerce about the investment in this country of a growing proportion of their premium income arising here.

I have asked each company to review urgently its policy and plans in relation to housing investment and to give favourable consideration in the review to expanding the level of such investment.

While we are promoting and assisting the provision of new housing, it is my aim at the same time to ensure that in so far as grant-aided new houses in schemes of four or more houses which are provided for sale are concerned, the sale price proposed represents reasonable value. All such houses must first receive a certificate of reasonable value before an applicacation for a grant will be processed.

There has been considerable activity under this scheme. Of the 8,048 houses for which certificates were sought up to 31st October last, 4,458 had been approved and 1,135 or approx. 14 per cent were refused certificates. Of the number refused, appeals were received in respect of 766 houses.

When the scheme was introduced an undertaking was given that first applications, as distinct from appeals, would generally be processed within 21 days of the receipt of a properly documented application. Since the scheme started the average time taken to process first applications has been 20 days.

The scheme necessarily is a flexible one because houses differ widely in size, type and location. It is based on "reasonable value", taking into consideration the various factors affecting costs. Where a certificate is refused, the builder is told that he has the right to appeal against the refusal. The scheme is kept under continuous review in my Department and regard is had all the time to increases in the cost of materials and labour.

A development in housing which I intend to encourage and assist is the combining of groups of people seeking to provide their own houses on a co-operative basis.

Some co-operative projects have got under way already. Experience shows that the development of co-operative housing within an area depends to a large extent on the support it gets from the local authority. I will be concerned to see that this support is forthcoming in any area where there is a potential for co-operative housing and I intend to examine the scope for new measures which would promote the further development of this desirable form of housing activity.

I am aware that in some areas voluntary housing organisations have been doing excellent work to supplement the housing activities of local authorities and I want to commend them for their efforts. There is scope for non-profit organisations to play a part especially in the provision of accommodation for elderly persons and other categories of persons who may not merit the highest priority from local authorities. Local authorities can assist voluntary housing groups by way of loan, loan guarantee or by periodic contributions and a special State subsidy is available to approved organisations which, by purchasing and converting existing houses, provide accommodation on a non-profit basis for small families. I would like to see fuller use being made of these powers and subsidies in the future.

In particular I would like local authorities to assist voluntary housing organisations by making serviced sites available to them.

The maintenance and improvement of the existing housing stock is of paramount importance. While the provision of new housing tends to feature more prominently, it would be wasteful if adequate provision were not made to ensure that the new building was backed up by a proper scheme of assistance towards maintenance, repair, and improvement of existing houses. I intend to have a comprehensive review made of the present scheme of reconstruction grants on the basis of the results of the Housing Stock Survey which has been carried out throughout the country and the findings of which are now being collated and analysed by An Foras Forbartha.

There is one important point which I must make before moving from the subject of private housing operations. I am not satisfied with the length of time which it takes to process an application for a housing grant and I am having the procedures reviewed thoroughly. My aim is to ensure that all grants are paid within a reasonable time and the organisation of my Department must be geared to achieve this objective. As one possible means of improving the quality of service to the public I am considering the devolution of private housing grants to local authorities. A pilot exercise in the devolution of new house grants commenced in County Meath in May last and a similar pilot exercise in relation to reconstruction and individual water and sewerage grants commenced in August in Longford and Westmeath. Further devolution of these grants will depend on the results of those pilot exercises.

As part of the Department's responsibilities in relation to the building industry it carries out each year, in conjunction with trade unions and employers' organisations, a review of progress and prospects in the industry. The last review estimated that the total output of building and construction work in 1972-73 amounted to £288 million, of which housing accounted for £112 million or 39 per cent. In real terms, the increase in output over 1971-72 was just short of 6 per cent.

My Department takes steps to promote a high level of efficiency in the industry. These include the conversion to the metric system of measurement, modular co-ordination and the rationalisation of building components, the preparation of new building regulations and the provision of technical assistance grants. The task of promoting and supervising the changes to metric measurement was entrusted to An Foras Forbartha and steady progress has been made. So far, An Foras has issued 20 metric bulletins and two metric guides.

Certain initiatives taken by the EEC with the general aim of promoting the concept of a common market in construction have implications for the Department. Apart from the directives on public works contracts, the commission has set up special working parties to consider other means of developing community-wide competition for building contracts. The Department participates in these working parties and keeps the principal organisations connected with the industry in touch with developments.

An Foras, in conjunction with my Department, is also developing a modular programme for the standardisation of dimensions in building. In October, 1972, modular guidelines were issued setting out the general principles and guidelines for the implementation of modular co-ordination. The programme is being undertaken in close consultation with manufacturers and designers with the object of getting agreement on suitable modular dimensions for a wide range of building components.

Work is proceeding on the final draft of the building regulations to be made under section 86 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, and I hope that the draft will be completed before the end of this year.

Under the technical assistance scheme, grants are made towards the cost of attendance at training courses by managerial, supervisory or technical personnel engaged in the building industry as well as by officials and representatives of trade unions and employers' unions. Grants are made also for the engagement of consultants by builders and contractors to improve efficiency. A sum of £30,000 is provided in the estimate for the scheme.

The public water and sewerage programmes have been seriously underfinanced for a number of years with the result that in very many areas, but especially in and around the larger urban centres, the stock of serviced land became critically inadequate to meet the demands for such land arising from housing, industrial and other development. The efforts made to remedy the position were on a paltry scale compared with the need and were not at all of the dimensions which would ensure that an adequate supply of serviced land would be made available quickly. Lack of a pool of serviced sites has been a factor in the continued extraordinary rise in the cost of housing sites. I hope that the increase in this year's capital allocation, which at £12.95 million is £4.72 million above the amount, £8.23 million, actually expended on the programmes in 1972-73 will be sufficient to encourage the speedy build-up of the programmes to the stage where they will be running at a satisfactory rate so that the backlog which has been allowed to build up will be cleared off in the shortest possible time.

I can understand that failure to provide sufficient capital in the past to finance the dynamic water and sewerage programmes that the circumstances demanded may have resulted in those associated with the programme, the local authorities and their consultants and the contractors engaged in the civil engineering industry feeling that the programmes were regarded as of secondary importance only. This feeling may have bred in all these people a certain mistrust of the future prospects for the programmes. I want to assure everyone concerned that I am fully alive to the fact that these programmes are a most important part of the foundation on which this country's future development must be built and I will see that they get an equitable share of available funds in the future.

The programmes can also, I consider, be accelerated by getting rid of a number of existing time consuming procedures under which for instance, proposals for water and sewerage schemes, either big or small, have to be submitted to my Department at a number of stages during planning. I am having examined to what extent these procedures can be streamlined so as to devolve on the local authorities the maximum responsibility in these matters. I know that local authorities are eager to play a more positive and independent role in these matters. I would like, however, to take this opportunity to impress on them the importance of one major aspect of these programmes and that is the necessity for forward planning. The planning and execution of a major water or sewerage scheme takes a long time even if everything goes without a hitch, and experience has shown that major schemes are all too prone to run into difficulties. The obvious solution is to look well ahead so as to ensure that services will always be ample to cater for foreseeable needs.

The demand for water and sewerage services to provide for the immediate needs of built up areas to support new housing developments and the regional industrial development programmes of the Industrial Development Authority is very substantial. It is likely that in the foreseeable future practically all the capital that can be made available for the water and sewerage programmes will be fully absorbed in the provision of services for such purposes, in ensuring that services in built up areas are adequate from the point of view of public health and in dealing with serious pollution problems.

It is evident, therefore, that the provision of sanitary services in rural areas must continue to depend as it has in recent years primarily on the initiative of the local people to provide these services with the aid of the grants that are available from the State and the local authorities for group water supply schemes. There is no doubt that considerable progress has been made in the last ten years in providing sanitary services in rural areas but the preliminary results of the 1971 Census show that far too many rural dwellings are still without these essential amenities. Some areas have made considerably greater progress than others but on average it appears that some 40 per cent of houses in rural areas are still without piped water while the corresponding percentage of dwellings without flush toilets is about 45 per cent. This is a position that we cannot lightly accept and I am considering how the work can be speeded up through the group water supply schemes. The proportion of rural houses being served by these schemes is increasing steadily each year. This is a welcome development because the quality and quantity of the water provided under group development is comparable with what could be expected from a public scheme whereas individual house supplies are sometimes substandard.

Up to the present my Department has played the major role in the promotion of group schemes while the local authority has played a somewhat secondary one. I think that these roles could be reversed with benefit to the programme, since local authorities are that stage nearer to groups and should be able to give them more immediate assistance and advice than is possible from my Department. Again local authorities should know the exact potential of the various parts of their areas for development by group schemes and should be able to give positive encouragement to the local community to undertake schemes. And finally, I believe in the principle that work of local value is best done locally. Accordingly, in conjunction with the study of devolution on sanitary services schemes, I am having considered how most effectively work on group schemes can be devolved on local authorities. Arrangements are being made for the devolution of group scheme work on a pilot basis to a few county councils, and this will give practical experience of what is involved in a general extension of the devolution process.

It is a measure of the growing importance of local authority activities, and especially the vital part they play in the development of the country, that the success or otherwise of local authority land acquisition programmes is of grave concern to so many interests, for example, the construction industry, the very many people who are in the queue for houses, industrialists, local communities seeking better development of their areas.

A lot of land is acquired by local authorities by agreement but very often the critical land must be acquired compulsorily and so the system of compulsory land acquisition is a key area of local authority operations. It is only inevitable that the system should be facing extraordinary strains at the moment. Its origin goes back a long time, but it was reviewed and improved substantially as recently as 1966. This review had to take account of the protection afforded to property rights in the Constitution and there are various safeguards, some of them time-consuming, built into the system accordingly. However, the pressures on land have increased enormously since 1966. As land has become more valuable, its acquisition by a public authority is more likely to be challenged up to the limit. The preliminary process by the local authority and the public inquiry both tend to become more complex, and the possibility of a case going to court becomes greater. It follows that the departmental examination of orders becomes more exacting and time-consuming also.

At 31st October, 1973 there were 93 compulsory purchase orders before my Department, four of them very important in that they involved approximately 2,300 acres sought for housing and ancillary purposes in the Dublin and Cork areas. Furthermore, eight orders already confirmed, involving about 1,000 acres, are the subject of court proceedings and action under them by the local authorities is therefore suspended. At 31st October also six applications were with my Department for provisional orders for the taking of water supplies.

The orders before my Department are being processed as expeditiously as possible, but the problems I have mentioned and the figures I have given necessitate a full review of the system of compulsory acquisition.

While the main purpose of the Kenny Committee was to look at building land prices, its terms of reference necessarily covered the system of land acquisition. The report is at present being considered and I hope that an announcement on it will be made in the near future.

All planning authorities have now made development plans for their areas under the Planning and Development Act and the position has been reached where many of them have also completed the first review and made the variations and amendments which they have found necessary in the light of experience and changing circumstances. The procedure is similar to that for making a plan. The proposed variations must be put on public display for at least three months and all objections and representations must be considered before the plan is varied. My Department have given advice and assistance but the function of making or amending a plan is a reserved function of planning authorities and my approval is not required for their proposals.

I am anxious that planning authorities should not accept the statutory obligation to review their plans as mere routine. Development plans are important and it is desirable that they should be seen not simply as a basis for restrictive control of development, but rather for the positive development of their area. Of course, some restrictions are necessary. We cannot allow the beauty of the countryside to be despoiled, our rivers to be polluted, or the efficiency and safety of our road network to be reduced. Neither would we wish to allow development to be carried out in such a manner that health and social problems are likely to result.

However, much of the pressure for haphazard or ill-sited development seems to have arisen from the scarcity of serviced land. I am hopeful that the increasing sanitary services programme will ease this problem considerably and, where it still exists, I expect planning authorities to exercise a suitable degree of flexibility in development control, on which I have some more to say later.

Few people would quarrel with the general content of development plans but I would like planning authorities to consider what can be done to make such plans more meaningful. It may also be possible to improve them by variations which will make them less restrictive without any significant departure from fundamental planning objectives. I realise the difficulty in this regard arising from the shortage of skilled personnel. My Department has been making efforts to overcome this problem. There are some indications that the position is improving and good prospects that it will continue to do so.

Just as it is vital that the local authorities should play the part they do in the planning and development of their own areas, so it is vital that they should play the leading part in the development of their region. It is essential that they should form the core of the regional development organisations, as they do, and that these organisations should grow from the local authorities.

The present regional development organisations have been in existence for some time now in each of the nine planning regions. In addition to having representatives of the local authorities as their main constituent, they also have representatives of Government Departments and other bodies responsible for particular facets of development such as the Industrial Development Authority, regional tourism organisations, local harbour commissioners et cetera. While their chief formal function relates to the co-ordination of development plans, in practice they provide the means for joint study of and a co-ordinated approach to the development problems affecting the region.

During the past year they continued their activities in this regard. Some work was done on planning co-ordination problems but the main activity in most regions was the carrying out of a survey of infrastructural needs. In addition, special surveys, such as the survey of water resources in the Donegal and North-East regions, were instigated. Much of this work was done at technical committee or sub-committee level, by officials of the constituent bodies, and considered at the board meetings which are usually held quarterly. It is hoped that the information collected and the priorities agreed will provide the basis for evolution of phased regional development programmes.

I am aware that regional development organisations are anxious to align their efforts towards maximising the benefit of any regional aids from the EEC and at the appropriate time they will be brought fully into the exercise. However, the position at present is that the key decisions on EEC regional policy have yet to be taken by the Community, in particular the nature and size of the proposed regional development fund. When the structure of this fund has been established, the precise nature of local and regional involvement here will emerge. In the meantime, every opportunity is taken to avail of any European financial sources that can usefully assist regional development here, for example, the European Investment Bank and the guidance section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

I might mention in particular that at the end of June, 1973, my Department submitted to the EEC Commission through the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, 122 applications for financial aid for rural water supply schemes from the guidance section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. Thirty-three of the applications were made on behalf of local authorities in respect of public water supply schemes and 89 were made in respect of group water supply schemes. A decision on the applications is not expected for some time.

As Deputies are aware, the first reading has been given to a Bill to deal with planning control and in particular to assign the work of dealing with planning appeals to an independent tribunal. It will also deal with enforcement. The finalisation of the draft of the Bill raised a number of difficulties, but I hope to have the text circulated very shortly now.

In the meantime I have the responsibility to deal with appeals. At my request, the Government made an order on 29th March delegating most of the appeal functions to my Parliamentary Secretary. While I still have concurrent power, most appeals are decided by my Parliamentary Secretary.

It is a heavy task. The total number of appeals received in 1972-73 was the highest ever, 3,233 in all or 443 more than the previous year. The number is continuing to grow. For example, 2,509 were received in the first seven months of the current financial year compared with 1,848 in the corresponding period last year. I may add that the figures for appeals decided in these periods were 1,997 this year compared with 1,793 last year.

I have considered various ways in which the increase in the volume of appeals can be checked, and in particular to what extent it can be checked at base by securing a greater rapport between would-be developers and the planning authorities particularly in relation to small developments such as those for single rural houses. I have, therefore, written to the planning authorities on the subject and indicated my view that they should approach applications for planning permission in a far less restrictive way and should grant permission unless there are serious objections or important planning grounds such as traffic safety, public health or amenity.

In particular, I believe that proposals for residential development in rural areas—one house or a small group—should be granted if at all possible. I am of opinion that this would have other advantages, for example, the encouragement of persons to provide their own houses and, therefore, assist the housing drive, the increase in the number of rural sites available and, therefore, a reduction in the price of such sites.

It is my intention that planning appeals will be dealt with on the basis of the above principles. I have arranged to discuss with the chief local officials concerned—county and city managers and engineers and the chief planning assistants—the implementation of the above principles in their operation of planning control.

As development proceeds in industry, housing, urban development generally and agriculture, the danger arises of an undue impact on the environment and the possibility that uncontrolled development could, while appearing to give better material standards of living, in fact reduce the quality of life. However, I believe that, once development is reasonably and properly controlled, we can have the benefits of economic growth and a good environment.

Our planning system enables the local authority, concerned with the development and the preservation of their area and responsible to the people, to exercise a control which takes account, in the case of each proposed development, of all aspects of it, including those affecting the environment. In some respects that system can be improved and this I propose to do in the Planning Bill.

In regard to water pollution I may mention the Report on Water Pollution by an interdepartmental committee, published without commitment by the previous Government. It surveys the present position and makes recommendations, including recommendations for new legislation and improved organisational and administrative arrangements to deal specifically with water pollution. The comments on the report which I have received from interested bodies are being studied in my Department. I want to see that there is more effective control of water pollution as soon as possible and I am glad to say that work is well advanced on the preparation of proposals in the matter for consideration by the Government.

Legislation will not in itself cure pollution. I recently held a conference of voluntary bodies concerned with the water pollution problem, which was also attended by city and county managers and representatives of interested State and semi-state bodies. Among the topics discussed was the question of greater involvement of voluntary bodies in support of measures to deal with water pollution. I will take due account of the views expressed at the conference in my further examination of the problem.

Meanwhile work goes on to combat pollution as part of the expanded activities of the local authorities in relation to sanitary and environmental services, not merely the provision and improvement of sewerage schemes, but also action to abate and prevent water pollution from industrial and agricultural activities and the undertaking of surveys of critical areas and problems, often through the agency of An Foras Forbartha.

With regard to local authority sewerage schemes I have asked local authorities to take all possible steps to eliminate any serious pollution arising from their sewerage systems as soon as possible and to initiate without delay the planning of remedial works, where necessary.

Air pollution is being kept under surveillance. Measurements of smoke and sulphur dioxide taken in Dublin and other centres during the past ten years or so show a steady decline in the level of smoke, but some rise in that of sulphur dioxide. Generally the monitoring arrangements are being improved. The regulations controlling heavier smoke emissions by industrial and other sources, which are enforced by local authorities, seem to be working well but I hope to see a further steady improvement in the position.

Inspection of works which are registered under the Alkali etc. Works Regulations Act, 1906—mainly chemical works—continued during the year. These inspections will be stepped up to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Act, designed to minimise emission of certain noxious or offensive gases, and to ensure that all registrable works are, in fact, registered. I am also looking into the question of extending this kind of control to processes not at present covered by the Act but which may cause nuisance or danger to health.

A review of the dumping and waste disposal service operated by local authorities is being undertaken by my Department. Local authorities have a statutory responsibility to provide facilities for dumping and to operate these facilities in a way which prevents the dump from itself becoming a nuisance. I think there is need to review standards for this service and in some respects to up-date the existing practices.

It has to be recognised, of course, that the task of coping with the growing volumes of waste is becoming ever more complex and costly and that there are serious problems in finding and operating suitable dumping sites. I am hoping that from the review which I have mentioned general advice and guidelines will emerge which will be of considerable assistance to local authorities in this area in the future. If local authorities are to give a lead, as they should, to the private sector as regards pride in town and countryside and avoidance of litter, they must observe the highest possible standards in their own services and particularly in those services which have to do directly with the collection and disposal of refuse.

I am particularly concerned about the litter problem and I would like to see greater activity by local authorities in propaganda and in enforcement action to combat this growing disfigurement of our cities, towns and resort areas. Accordingly, I recently wrote to local authorities setting out the various powers which they have to take action to deal with litter and various nuisances, and urging them to make full use of those powers to bring about higher standards in their areas.

A new problem, but a real one, is the danger of coastal pollution from oil. Our geographical location, the established tanker routes and the revolution in undersea exploration all mean that our coasts are now exposed to a constant threat of serious pollution damage from the sea. Arrangements must be made to deal with any incidents of that kind that may occur. I am glad to report that progress is being made. A liaison committee representing the Department of Local Government, Transport and Power, Agriculture and Fisheries, Defence, and the City and County Managers Association, and the Institution of Engineers of Ireland has been set up to assist in providing guidance and advice for local bodies concerned with clearance of oil pollution, and to ensure co-ordination and the best use of the resources that are available for the purpose.

With the assistance of that committee a considerable amount of work has been done to date. Maritime local authorities have been asked to prepare contingency plans and have been given advice as to how to proceed; the Minister for Transport and Power has asked harbour authorities to co-operate fully. The preparation of these contingency plans is now well advanced and initial stocks of dispersant material have been, or are being, laid in. A conference for local authority oil pollution officers was held on 12-13 June, where they received specialist advice from people with practical experience of oil clearance and with expert knowledge of the techniques. When opening it I announced the very generous terms on which the State is assisting the local authorities. The local authorities will be asked to meet only 50 per cent of the cost of their work, up to a limit of a rate of 2½p in the £. The rest will be met by the State.

The subject of oil pollution naturally leads one to consider the international aspects of pollution, which is no respecter of boundaries. My Department seeks to keep fully in touch with international developments and, for instance, is at present taking part with 13 other countries in the preparation of an international convention for the control of marine pollution from land-based sources in the north-east Atlantic area.

We are concerned in particular with developments in the EEC where an environmental programme was adopted at the Council of Ministers meeting on 19th July which I attended. This programme provides for action, which in some cases will fall to be taken at the national level and in others at Community level, aimed at the reduction and control of pollution and nuisance as well as action under a variety of headings to improve the living surroundings. It also provides for joint action by the member states in international organisations dealing with environmental matters. It is likely that much of the early work to be undertaken under the programme will be aimed at improving information about the nature and effects of various pollutants of water and air in order to provide a better basis for control and, where necessary, for a uniform approach to control measures. One of the underlying principles recognised in the programme is that action by one State should not result in environmental deterioration in another. It is important to have such rules of good neighbourliness, in the environmental sense, formally adopted at the Community level.

I believe that the programme, and the work to be undertaken under it, will be a considerable help to this country, as to the other members, in dealing with their own pollution and environmental problems as well as in enabling those problems which call for common action to be tackled. It will also be necessary to ensure that the special features of environmental conditions in this country, and our development needs, are borne in mind in the further evolution of Community measures. To this end continued close involvement in EEC environmental work is envisaged. My Department are represented on the working party concerned in Brussels.

I have been speaking of the more protective side of the environmental activities of my Department but we are also very much concerned with the improvement and development of facilities for recreation, valuable for our own people and also an addition to our tourist attractions. A number of schemes administered by my Department are of value in this regard.

I may mention the swimming pool programme. A considerable number of pools have been provided by or with the assistance of local authorities and there are others in the pipeline. I am having the whole programme surveyed, to see what is involved, not merely in the provision of new pools but in their operation and the operation of those there already.

Here I may mention the excellent work of the Irish Water Safety Association, which is assisted by a grant from my Department's Vote. The association's main programme provides for swimming and life-saving instruction to the public. They are also carrying out, in consultation with sanitary authorities, a complete survey of bathing places with a view to establishing the conditions which exist at beaches, lakes, et cetera, so as to enable any necessary precautions such as erection of warning notices or other safety measures to be undertaken by local authorities. Another important activity of the association is the training of life guards for local authority work.

The amenity grants scheme is another source from which my Department assist local authorities in the provision of desirable amenities in their areas. Last year a substantial sum was spent on this service because during the year, in addition to the original £300,000 allocated to the scheme, a further £165,000 was allocated, but unfortunately the Minister for Finance at the time, Deputy Colley, made it a condition of his sanction to this arrangement that there would have to be a corresponding reduction in the budgetary provision for the scheme for 1973-74. Taking account of this £165,000 and of the net provision of £240,000 in this year's Estimate, I am therefore providing more than £400,000, that is, more than a third more than last year's original estimate. I would have liked to have developed the scheme much further this year, but it was necessary to push every available £ into the expanded housing and sanitary services programmes, which also have a high environmental content. Indeed, there may, in fact, be no net reduction in amenity spending because local authorities in their housing activities are being encouraged to provide the very kind of amenity dealt with to a large extent under the amenity grants scheme.

Another of the more positive sides of environmental work in which local government are deeply involved is the conservation of our national heritage.

A number of Government Departments and other public bodies are necessarily concerned with this, but local government have a very special role to play. In the operation of the planning system, the local authorities can identify and protect the various heritage items in their area, acting in appropriate cases in support of bodies that may be specially concerned with specific aspects of the environment. The conservation and amenity advisory service operated by An Foras Forbartha is designed to provide a specialist service to local authorities in regard to this aspect of their planning functions, and I understand it is now availed of, successfully, by practically all county councils.

I may mention also that very recently our National Committee for the European Architectural Heritage Year was formally launched. I have the honour to be chairman of the committee. I wish to take the opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the spirit of public service permeating the very many authorities and bodies which are prepared to play an active and constructive part in the work necessary at national, regional and local levels to make the year a success in Ireland. I would consider that the most rewarding result our committee can achieve is to develop throughout the community, as widely and as deeply as possible, a consciousness of our heritage and a growing interest in it. Our architectural heritage may not be on the massive scale found elsewhere, but it is impressive and it is uniquely our own. We should ensure that all our people are enriched by it.

The fire service is expected to be there when it is needed. Apart from that, it is not a service that people think about a great deal. Its task is to protect lives and property from fire. Traditionally, this has been thought of in terms of fire-fighting and fire rescues but there is a growing emphasis now on the importance of fire prevention. This is a logical and very welcome development because where fire is concerned prevention is always better than cure.

There has been a significant increase in the material losses caused by fire each year. The figure for the past year is £7 million approximately. From the community point of view it has to be remembered that to make good this loss means diverting to restoration works a very substantial sum of money each year which could be put to alternative productive or socially beneficial uses. Such a wastage of national resources must be avoided to the maximum extent possible. I have no doubt that fire losses would be much greater but for the magnificent work which is being done by our fire brigades who are performing such valuable work for the community.

The local authority fire service operates under the Fire Brigades Act, 1940, but their operations are affected by a number of other statutory provisions. This position, the growing emphasis on fire prevention and changes in many technical and operational procedures including the introduction of new materials, all add up to a need for a fairly basic review of the fire service and the way in which it operates. This review is at present being carried out by a working party representative of the Departments mainly concerned, of the city and county managers and of the professional bodies and trade unions concerned. This working party was asked to prepare an interim report on fire prevention measures and they made a number of interim recommendations under this heading. They expressed support for the recommendation which had already been made by my Department to local authorities to strengthen their organisations to enable them to give more attention to fire prevention work by appointing suitable additional staff for the purpose and by availing of the training course in fire prevention which is now being conducted for such staff in the regional technical college in Galway. The working party expressed their belief that the appointment of such additional staff by local authorities, and their training, would enable the local authorities to engage more extensively and more effectively in fire prevention work within a relatively short time. The working party also suggested—and I think this is an important point—that local authorities should be prepared not only to undertake those inspections and controls for which they have specific statutory cover but to do everything they can, by information, advice and exhortation, to increase awareness of fire risk and the value of fire preventive measures.

The working party has also recommended that an interim publicity campaign should be mounted and that this would be done most effectively at local level. Specifically, the working party has suggested that local seminars on fire prevention should be organised by local authorities, particularly for management in places of public resort, but also for other groups.

The interim recommendations of the working party have been conveyed to local authorities with a request that arrangements be made to act on them as quickly as possible and an indication that my Department will be prepared to help in any way it can.

The working party is continuing with its main review. This will cover the question of training. In recent years there has been stress on the need for a proper and standardised system of training, particularly for retained fire brigades. The series of training courses organised by my Department for retained fire brigade personnel is a step in the right direction. Over the past few years improved equipment and stations have also been provided at substantial cost.

The need for additional measures in regard to these and any other aspects of the operation of the local authority fire service will be considered in due course in the light of the working party's finding and recommendations.

Elsewhere in my speech I refer to specific activities of An Foras Forbartha. This indicates the varied and valuable way in which the organisation helps my Department and the local authorities to discharge their functions more effectively.

The institute conducts research and associated work, including dissemination of research, on a wide range of functions in the environmental field. Its main activities can be best appreciated when one considers that it is organised in four research divisions—planning, including conservation, construction, roads and water resources.

A number of valuable reports were produced during the year. I shall not go into details of these. I may mention that An Foras Forbartha, having passed the early stages of its formation, is now preparing a long-term research programme. This was recommended by a group of experts which the Institute commissioned to examine its operations. I shall be interested to consider this programme in due course, not merely because I am answerable for the financing of the greater part of the activities of the institute but also because I am vitally concerned with the areas of activity in which the research operations of An Foras Forbartha can play a very important part.

Under subhead I, a sum of £345,000 is being provided for the grant-in-aid to An Foras Forbartha this year. In addition, it receives a grant from the Road Fund.

The programme for itinerants has now been in operation for a considerable number of years. A great deal of effort, voluntary and public, has been put into the programme. The State continues to offer the most generous terms to assist local authorities in their activities in this regard. Over 700 families have been accommodated in camping sites or in houses, but very many are still to be dealt with. I am particularly sorry for the plight of those families who are anxious to settle but for one reason or another cannot do so. The consequences for their children, deprived of the chance of a decent education and a good job, are particularly sad. It is particularly relevant to our social aim of equality of opportunity for all.

I am not unaware at the same time of the difficulties which beset the job of getting local communities to accept itinerant settlement. I am hopeful that a continuing and intelligent presentation of the facts and the issues will convince more and more local communities where their duty in justice and in charity lies. This must be sensibly and sensitively done, preferably at local level.

For my part, I can promise on behalf of the Government continuing support—financial and otherwise—for the whole settlement programme. I would like also to pay a tribute to the good work done to date and being done by local authorities and to all those engaged on a voluntary basis in the settlement programme.

Deputies will be aware that a comprehensive general reclassification of the entire public road network of the country has been in progress in recent years. Preliminary studies which have been conducted at engineering level between officers of the road authorities and my Department in regard to the selection of roads which might form the regional road system have now been completed and I have recently entered into consultation with the road authorities and the regional development organisations as to the particular roads in their areas which should be reclassified as regional roads. The regional roads together with the national roads already designated will replace the existing main, trunk and link, road system and, broadly speaking, form the 20 per cent most important roads in the country.

Studies have also been initiated in my Department into the question of reclassification of the urban and city street systems. This is a complex matter which must take account of the findings of the various traffic studies and their implications in the context of development plans and is not likely to be concluded for a considerable time. The common transport policy of the European Communities raises some implications for roads administration in this country. Regulations already in force at the date of our accession requires us to adopt, in common with other countries, a unified system of accounting for expenditure on infrastructure used for transport by rail, road and inland waterway, with effect from 1st January, 1974. My Department is at present examining the implications of these regulations in so far as expenditure on roads is concerned and I hope to communicate with local authorities in the matter in the near future. The unified accounting system is a preliminary to the setting up, under the common policy, of a common system of charging for the use of transport infrastructures, including a restructuring of the rates of tax on commercial vehicles, which will be designed to eliminate unfair competition between the various modes of transport, and within each mode, and to ensure that existing infrastructure capacity is used with the maximum efficiency. In so far as road infrastructure is concerned, it is envisaged that the suggested system, which is still at a preliminary stage, will be implemented over a period of at least ten years.

The provision for Road Fund grants for the current year is £18.93 million, an increase of £4.51 million on last year. This very substantial increase is evidence of the Government's awareness of the importance of our roads system in the social and commercial life of the country, and its significance for future economic growth.

The net income of the Road Fund available for grants in the current year was estimated at £13.24 million. Provision for a grant from the Exchequer in the sum of £3.29 million is included in the Book of Estimates. As announced by the Minister for Finance in his budget speech, however, the Government decided that the Exchequer grant would be increased to £5.69 million and, accordingly, a Supplementary Estimate for £2.4 million will be necessary. As I have already said, I propose to ask the House at the end of this debate to approve this proposal. The whole subject of roads financing in the long term is at present under review having regard to the needs of the roads system and taking account of the implications of EEC membership. Deputies may like to have a road break-down of how the sum of £18.93 million has been allocated. The figures are: national primary roads, £7.83 million; national secondary roads, £2.21 million; other main roads and county roads, £5.85 million; urban roads, including £6 million for traffic management works, £2.49 million; bridges and other special works, £0.55 million.

Studies carried out by An Foras Forbartha, with the co-operation of local authorities and of my Department, have shown that a high proportion—about one-third—of the mileage of national primary roads judged by fairly moderate standards, is rated as deficient for present day traffic, and that with the constant growth of traffic the deficient mileage will increase each year unless adequate measures are taken to effect the necessary improvements. An increased provision of £3 million has been provided this year for an expanded programme of improvement works on these roads.

Increased provisions, totalling more than £1 million have been made to allow some urgently needed improvements to be carried out on national secondary and other main roads and on county roads. These include a substantially increased allocation in County Dublin to provide for the needs of the expanding suburbs and in particular for the new housing areas in Tallaght, Clondalkin and Blanchardstown. Increased provisions have also been made for the on-going programmes of improvement works in the major urban areas; for upkeep grants for the national primary and secondary roads; and for the bridge construction programme.

An important innovation in the current year has been the allocation of a combined grant for the improvement and upkeep of main roads which are not national roads, and the improvement of county roads, with discretion to the local authorities to decide the choice of works to be carried out. This gives to the local authorities greater control of local works programmes.

I have merged the special category of grant for roads of tourist interest with the allocations for other roads in the areas concerned. Within the block grant system councils are now free to allocate grants for general improvements works on county roads, where they are satisfied that such works are urgent because of the condition of the roads and the amount of traffic carried. Councils will no doubt, continue to give due attention to the blacktopping of county roads in the areas where that programme is not sufficiently advanced.

In notifying Road Fund grants this year I have drawn the attention of road authorities to the necessity to ensure that road improvement works are designed to harmonise with the environment, to cause the minimum interference with the livelihood of local people or with the amenities enjoyed by them. I have also emphasised that it is of the utmost importance that full and clear information be given to all parties concerned, at the earliest possible stage, indicating the nature of proposals and the extent to which they would interfere with important local features.

A provision of £1 million has been made for grants to county councils towards the cost of improvements to accommodation and bog roads and minor drainage works serving groups of landholders. This is the same as the provision made last year, but it is, I think, fair to point out that the amount originally voted last year was only £500,000 and it was not until September of that year that a supplementary allocation of £350,000 was notified. A final allocation of £150,000 was made in December, 1972. It is, in my view, unsatisfactory that their allocations should be disclosed to county councils in such a piecemeal fashion. It is also unsatisfactory that the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Colley, should have made the final allocation of £150,000 subject to the condition that a corresponding reduction would be made in the budgetary provision for local improvement schemes in 1973-74. Taking account of this £150,000 in addition to the provision of £1 million included in the present Estimate, I am providing an increase of £300,000 or 35 per cent over the provision of £850,000 otherwise made in respect of 1972-73.

I am aware that there is a backlog of applications under this scheme and that some will take the view that a bigger provision is called for to reduce the waiting period for applicants. I sympathise with that view but it must in fairness be accepted that the amount provided is a very substantial figure and that it will permit reasonable progress towards meeting the demand for these works.

The standards and qualifications required of drivers are becoming inquire creasingly important with the growing complexity of traffic and the extension of international transport. Valuable research work, to which this country contributes, is continuously being undertaken by various international organisations with a view to identifying and establishing satisfactory standards in regard to age, theory and practice of driving, physical and mental fitness, experience et cetera.

The EEC as part of its common transport policy is working towards harmonisation of standards for driver qualification and of the laws governing driver licensing. One of its regulations which has been in operation since 1969 prescribes minimum ages and qualifications for drivers of heavy goods and large passenger vehicles. The provisions of this regulation will not apply until 1976 to Irish drivers while driving in this State. Our driver conditions for these types of vehicles do not differ substantially from those of the EEC but, in any event, Irish owners and drivers engaged in international transport have been advised by public advertisement of the implications of the regulation which may apply abroad.

In addition, the Commission of the EEC has prepared a draft directive containing comprehensive proposals for the harmonisation of all aspects of driver licensing. These include a standard licence to be valid throughout all member States; standard conditions of issue embracing driving tests and medical examinations; standard classification of vehicles and standard procedures for dealing with driving offenders and the disqualifications of licences. Progress at EEC level is expected within the next few months and, in the meantime, the implications of the various proposals are being closely examined in my Department, having regard to our existing conditions of driver qualification.

On the medical side, the procedure for assessing driver fitness in this country is generally along the lines recommended by the World Health Organisation. We do not, however, require confirmation of a satisfactory standard of eyesight and, perhaps, there may be room for improvement along this line. This aspect of driver fitness will be borne in mind in conjunction with the EEC proposals to establish medical standards.

It has been possible, in the light of experience, to introduce a number of improvements in the test procedure. In this connection I am happy to announce that candidates from now on need only demonstrate hand signals while the car is stationary, and not while driving as heretofore, and unsuccessful candidates will be able to distinguish between the serious and the minor errors which they incur on test.

I am satisfied that our driving test scheme establishes a satisfactory standard in the theory and practice of driving. In the year ended 31st March, 1973, over 72,000 tests were conducted. The cumulative total is now over 450,000 since the introduction of the scheme in 1964. More than 36 per cent of holders of full driving licences have now passed the test and this proportion will increase progressively in the coming years. The success rate in the tests is now slightly less than 50 per cent. With a view to achieving a higher degree of uniformity, the standard procedure for conducting the test and the guidelines for marking faults were revised recently in the light of experience over the past nine years.

Traffic congestion in our cities and towns continues to be one of the most pressing problems of our times. It is now recognised that the building of new roads, even if it were socially and economically possible, cannot of itself solve the problem; it must be tackled in a number of other ways. One of the ways in which I am endeavouring to alleviate congestion is by encouraging local authorities to implement various management measures such as the provision of car parks, one-way streets, clearways, parking restrictions, traffic lights and other works of a minor nature all of which go towards making the best use of the road space available. I have allocated £600,000 from the Road Fund this year for traffic management proposals and I would ask local authorities to submit their proposals to absorb the grant as quickly as possible. I might add that it is not only traffic which will benefit from these undertakings but also the pedestrian. It can be said that certain improvements have resulted from traffic management measures already carried out and, while further improvements will be effected, though the scope for this is now lessening as evidenced by the lower allocation this year as against last year, it is obvious that long term planning for major works must be pursued at the same time.

Other management measures, in particular the making of bye-laws and temporary rules for the control of traffic and parking, are primarily the responsibility of the Garda Commissioner and local authorities. My functions are mainly of an enabling nature and also involve the giving of my consent to bye-laws and rules. The enforcement of these bye-laws and rules is, of course, a matter for the Garda Síochána in administering the Road Traffic Acts and the Road Fund contributes substantially to the Garda Vote for this purpose.

I have authorised the preparation of legislative proposals to proceed to enable local authorities to appoint traffic wardens for their areas should they wish to do so. This, in effect, would formalise the present administrative arrangement in Dublin where traffic wardens are under the control and direction of Dublin Corporation. Built-up area and special speed limits continue to be reviewed on a county by county basis as part of an on-going process of review of speed limits throughout the country generally. I am examining arrangements for expediting the review procedure. The general speed limit of 60 mph which has applied to all roads not subject to a lower limit since 1st April, 1969, is being constantly kept under review by An Foras Forbartha. OECD, in co-operation with European Conference of Ministers for Transport, are also involved in examining speed limits policies generally and have recently issued a report on speed limits outside built-up areas, with particular regard to the link between speed and accidents. They are now in the process of taking the matter a step further and, until the final conclusions are available, I do not intend to revise the current general speed limit.

Our entry into the EEC has implications also for the work of my Department in relation to controls on vehicles. The Community is engaged on a programme for the elimination of technical barriers to trade in the motor vehicle sector. In pursuance of this programme uniform standards for vehicles and their components are being adopted and it is obligatory on us to ensure that vehicles complying with the standards adopted by the Community are allowed to circulate on our roads. Our vehicle regulations under the Road Traffic Acts will be brought into line as necessary for this purpose.

The question of the weights and dimensions of commercial vehicles is being processed at Community level in the context of a common transport policy. The six founder member states had reached a degree of agreement on some of the more controversial items of the problem generally, but the three acceding members did not accord their agreement to these proposals, particularly the single axle weight and the gross vehicle weight. Ireland will continue to urge a lower single axle weight than that of the 11 metric tons proposed, and also for a lower gross maximum weight than the 40 metric tons put forward for articulated vehicles and truck/trailer combinations.

The EEC has adopted a directive on motor insurance which requires that every motor insurance policy issued in this country and other member States will, not later than 31st December next, provide the minimum third-party cover required by the laws of each member State. Certain other countries are associated with the EEC for this purpose. This arrangement will facilitate the movement of goods and persons by road within the Community and the associated countries, especially as the directive foresees the abolition of the examination of insurance documents at frontier posts in respect of vehicles travelling between the states concerned. Accordingly, from 1st January, 1974, motor insurance policies issued in this country must include cover in respect of claims arising from accidents while travelling within the EEC and associated countries.

The existing controls over the licensing and operation of small public service vehicles are being reviewed at present and in this connection representations received in recent years regarding problems associated with the taxi and hackney business throughout the country are being given full consideration. An on-going committee for the Dublin area formed in 1972 under the aegis of Dublin Corporation, which is representative of all the interests involved, have submitted a number of recommendations to me which they consider would lead to the improvement of the taxi service in the Dublin area. They include one that the number of small public service vehicles should be stabilised at the present figure and that there should be only one period in the year during which new applications for small public service vehicle licences could be made. Another recommendation is that a taxi board be set up in connection with the operation of the business in the Dublin area. As regards stabilisation or limitation of numbers, this could be operated only if amending legislation was enacted. On the question of new licences, I have made regulations providing that applications for licences for taxis are to be made henceforth on an annual rather than a quarterly basis. As regards the other recommendations, these are being examined at present in consultation with the interests concerned not only in relation to the Dublin area but also in relation to other areas.

The research project on vehicle defects and road safety, which my Department asked An Foras Forbartha to undertake, got under way in September, 1972. The purpose of the project is to determine the incidence of defects in vehicles in use and to consider their implications for road safety measures. A related problem to be investigated is to determine the extent to which vehicles may be overloaded in relation to their design characteristics. The project team has so far examined a sample of private cars in the Dublin, Sligo and Mullingar areas and recorded the results for future study. Arrangements are being made to bring commercial vehicles within the scope of the project. An analysis of the data obtained from the project will be used to provide information to determine what further controls are required to reduce the chances of defective vehicles being used on the roads. The EEC Commission has produced a draft directive on the technical inspection of vehicles. The information emerging from the Foras Forbartha study will be of value in our examination of the EEC proposals.

Over the last ten months there has been a small decrease in fatalities compared with the corresponding period of 1971-72. I would like to attribute to increased enforcement by the Garda particularly of the breathalyser law, a significant part in at least halting the ever-increasing spiral of road deaths. The very large number of drivers detected by the gardaí and subsequently found to have blood-alcohol levels considerably in excess of the legal limit of 125 milligrammes is an indication of the prevalence of drinking and driving in this country. While many people may not accept it, or choose to ignore it, the weight of scientific evidence points to excessive consumption of alcohol as a major factor in road accidents particularly on weekend nights, traditional drinking periods. The operation of the breathalyser law was affected by two Supreme Court decisions this year. One of these decisions related to the sealing of blood and urine samples, and I took immediate steps by way of amending regulations to revise the statutory procedures. The second decision ruled that portion of a section of the breathalyser law was unconstitutional. Following on these decisions, I introduced amending legislation which was passed by the Oireachtas at the end of the last term.

Our serious road accident problem cannot all be laid at the door of the drinking driver. It covers the whole spectrum of driving behaviour or, perhaps, more appropriately, driving misbehaviour as reflected in the appalling road manners, the excessive speeding and the continuous violation of traffic rules by many drivers. Here I would like to mention that, as already announced by my colleague the Minister for Justice, increased enforcement facilities are now becoming available to the gardaí through the recently established traffic corps, units of which are in operation in a number of areas. As these units expand and extend their areas of operation, I believe they will act as an effective deterrent to the would-be traffic offender.

Enforcement is only part of the answer to the problem. Other means are necessary to make road users more conscious of their responsibilities. For some years my Department have maintained a constant stream of road safety propaganda by way of films, literature and various publicity campaigns. Various educational projects aimed particularly at children have been devised and implemented including junior school warden schemes, a pilot traffic school for children operated by Dublin Corporation and the provision of visual aids for giving road safety instruction to children in primary schools. With financial assistance from my Department, road safety officers are working to promote road safety at local level.

The assistance and co-operation of other agencies in road safety promotion has been readily forthcoming. The Department of Education, local authorities, the Garda, the Safety First Association and local road safety bodies, teachers, school authorities, cinema managements, Radio Telefís Éireann, the press and various organisations and commercial interests have all contributed towards the efforts being made in the sphere of education and propaganda. The effects of education and propaganda cannot readily be measured and no one can really assess how many lives have been saved. It is, however, abundantly clear that greater effort is required in the level and the impact of road safety measures to achieve more positive results.

Following a review of the current organisation and effectiveness of road safety activities, including proposals which were before my predecessor in office, I decided to proceed with the establishment of the National Road Safety Association which was brought into being on 16th July, 1973, when I appointed the chairman and executive committee of the organisation which is representative of a number of organisations and interests. The principal objectives of this new organisation will be to secure greater co-ordination of road accident prevention measures on a countrywide basis, using the county as a basic unit of organisation, to prepare programmes which would secure the direct involvement of local community interests and to ensure that the moneys expended on road safety are spent to the best effect. As a start, the new national body has already been assigned the road safety propaganda and publicity activity in which the Department had been engaged.

The association had already decided on a publicity programme to be undertaken during the winter months and on a pilot project aimed at devising the best means of securing local community involvement. I envisage other functions in relation to road safety being assigned to the new body at a later stage.

The new body will be financed mainly from State funds and I propose that they should have corporate status as soon as possible to facilitate its initiative and responsibilities.

The Public Services Organisation Review Group reported some time ago on the organisation of Government Departments and the distribution of functions between Departments. One of the more important recommendations made by the group related to the structure of Departments and the arrangements for discharging executive as distinct from policy functions. Special studies have been initiated in some Departments including my Department for the purpose of analysing in detail their work and functions. In the case of my Department the study will advise on what functions should be devolved on the local authorities or on executive units. The study is being directed by a task force and a working party of senior officers of the Department of the Public Service and my Department. Arrangements are being made for full consultation with local authority and staff interests. It is hoped that the study will be completed early in the new year and then a final agreed report will be submitted to me and the Minister for the Public Service for consideration.

The pace of local development has put considerable pressures on the staffs of local authorities in recent years. In order to ensure that the manpower needs of the service are properly evaluated and met, I have established an advisory committee to be known as the Local Government Manpower Committee. This committee will advise on the needs of the service for suitably qualified and trained personnel in adequate numbers for the work in hands and on the promotion of measures to meet these needs. Its first major task will be to advise on the introduction of systematic training programmes for all staff.

The net estimate for a sum of £33,292,000 represents just over a quarter of the total central government expenditure of £114 million with which my Department is directly concerned in the current year. In addition to the voted provision, the two other main sources from which the funds come are the local loans fund and the Road Fund. To this figure must be added expenditures met by local authorities from other sources giving total expenditure on local government services of over £250 million including contributions to health boards and other bodies.

The mounting expenditure on these services makes it imperative that the aims and objectives of the services should be clearly defined and that we should know the contribution the expenditure is making towards achieving those aims and objectives, in terms of meeting the needs and remedying the deficiencies identified. That is the purpose of the introduction of the techniques of programme budgeting in my Department and in local authorities.

Because of the diversity of local government services, the interaction in services between my Department and local authorities, and the complexity of measuring needs and achievement it will take some years to make the system fully operational. The first step in introducing the system in local authorities is intended to be a revision of the basis on which the local authorities prepare their estimates. The revised estimating procedures will require authorities to project in programme form their expenditure and income and the results which the expenditure is intended to achieve for a period of five years ahead. This should enable elected members to take a forward look at what their programmes will achieve and at the levels of expenditure and of income which are likely to be needed to sustain their programmes, as well as reviewing annually the rate of progress towards satisfaction of local needs.

I would regard it is an essential part of the programme budgeting system as it is to apply to local authorities and a measure of its value as an aid to planning and management, that it should facilitate a much greater devolution of responsibility and decision-making within the broad framework of programmes to local authorities and it is my intention to ensure that this aspect receives particular attention at all stages of the introduction and development of programme budgeting in local government. Initially, it is intended that the revised estimating procedure will be brought in on an experimental basis side by side with the traditional estimates. With a view to familiarising local authority members and officers with the programme budgeting system, officers of my Department have participated in a series of courses and seminars at various centres throughout the country at which the application of programme budgeting both in my Department and in the local authorities has been discussed.

In the sphere of local authority finance, the most significant development since the Government took office has been the decision to reduce the amount required to be provided from local rates for health services and local authority housing. In their 14-point plan announced before the general election, the National Coalition had stated their intention to reduce rates by transferring from local to central taxation, on a phased basis, that part of the cost of health services and local authority housing which, heretofore, had fallen on the rates. At the end of March last. the Government announced that, as the first phase in this transfer, local authorities in 1973-74 would be required to strike a rate in the pound for health services and local authority housing equivalent to only 75 per cent of the rates struck for these purposes in 1972-73. This decision means that the Government not only is paying the full amount of any increases in the costs of these services as between 1972-73 and the current financial year, but also that the liabilities of local authorities for these services have, this year, been reduced by 25 per cent as compared with 1972-73.

The consequence of this decision by the Government is that, for the first time in very many years, local authority rates in most areas have been reduced. For example, the reduction in the rates in the pound between last year and this year is 31p in County Carlow, 35p in Cork North, 29p in Cork South, 11p in County Galway, 25p in County Mayo, 78p in County Sligo, 37p in County Wexford; in the county boroughs of Cork and Limerick, the reduction is 35p in the £ in each case while in the county borough of Dublin the reduction is 29p in the £. These reductions indicate a position which compares more than favourably with that which has obtained over the past few years—a glance at the change in rates between 1971-72 and 1972-73 shows the following increases for the same authorities: Carlow, 80p; Cork North, 84p; Cork South, 79p; Galway, 54p; Mayo, 115p; Sligo, 74p; Wexford, 105p; in the county boroughs referred to, the increases had been Cork 82p, Limerick 95p, and Dublin 59p.

A number of local authorities had struck their rates before the Government's decision was announced and, in order that the ratepayers in those areas might benefit from the reductions announced by the Government, the Local Government (Rates) Act, 1973, was enacted to validate the action of those local authorities in levying reduced rates.

A good deal of play has been made in the House of the fact that the relief from rates which has been given applies not just to private residences, but to all other categories of hereditaments as well. To those who have been critical of this significant change for the better in the matter of local taxation, I would like to put the following questions. Are they serious when they say that no relief should be given in respect of any hereditament which is not used as a private dwellinghouse?

Is relief to be refused to the small shopkeeper? Is it to be refused to the owners of small hotels whose business may be affected by fluctuations in tourist traffic? Is it to be refused in the case of small—or not so small—industrial undertakings some of which may be battling hard to keep going in the face of increased competition and rising costs? Are land holdings and are local community halls and centres also to be precluded from getting relief? I and many people throughout the country, would like to hear a clear exposition of the Government's critics' stand on the question of withholding relief from hereditaments such as those I have mentioned.

However, lest it be still imagined that the present form of rate relief is enjoyed to the same extent by the rated occupiers of office-blocks and large industrial concerns, I would like to point out that, in the case of any commercial or industrial concern which is making a profit and is liable for income tax and, where appropriate, corporation profits tax, their offset for tax purposes will be reduced by the amount of their saving on rates. In these cases, a considerable proportion, sometimes up to 50 per cent of the total saving on rates will have to be returned to the State by way of increases in the amounts of Central Government taxation which will have to be paid by them.

In the year ended 31st March last, schemes for the granting of relief from rates to persons in necessitous circumstances were adopted by 54 local authorities. The number of persons who benefited from these schemes was approximately 21,400, an increase of about 5,300, 33 per cent on the previous year's figure. Up to the end of September, 47 local authorities had adopted rates waiver schemes for the current year and had submitted them to me for approval. The trend has been that many local authorities have been adopting their schemes quite late in the year—often after the rate demands have been served. I would ask those local authorities which have been operating rates waiver schemes, or which propose to do so, to consider their adoption at a much earlier stage in future years so that those people who need relief from rates will know where they stand as early as possible —preferably before they are served with demands for their rates.

While on the topic of rates, I would also like to draw attention to the schemes operated by local authorities for the payment of rates in instalments spread over ten months of the year, instead of in two moieties payable on receipt of the rates demand and on 1st October of each year. This facility is available, as a matter of right, to all householders and occupiers of agricultural holdings and it seems to me to have very definite attractions for a large number of these ratepayers. The numbers of persons availing of this facility continue to rise each year—last year over 14,000 persons paid rates under the instalment schemes.

As Deputies are aware, the elected members of the local authorities in Dublin city and Bray were removed from office in 1969. On my appointment as Minister for Local Government, I set about the task of restoring power to the former members. Each of the surviving members of the former councils was asked to indicate whether he or she would be in a position and willing to accept appointment as a commissioner for Dublin or Bray, as appropriate. At the beginning of May, I made orders appointing new commissioners for the two authorities; the orders provided that appointments to subsidiary bodies and the conduct of business should be done in the same manner as if the new commissioners constituted the elected councils. The orders also provided for the appointment of a chairman by each group of commissioners from among themselves and, in the case of Dublin, that the chairman should exercise and perform all the powers, duties and functions exercisable and performable by the Lord Mayor. Thus democratic local government has been restored in Dublin city and Bray.

As the House is aware, local elections were not held this year and this decision has been endorsed by the Local Elections Act, 1973. The decision to postpone the elections for one year was taken because of the number of elections which had already been held in the past year and because of the proximity of the Presidential election. In coming to this decision the Government were also conscious of the need for a fresh examination of local government itself. The previous Government issued a White Paper on the subject of Local Government Reorganisation in February, 1971, but no legislation arising out of this had been brought before the House up to the time they left office.

I agree that there is a need for a review of local government but having said that may I also add that I do not believe in changing things just for the sake of changing them? My approach to the matter will be based on the Government's election pledge that it "will hold it as a priority at all times that power must be vested in the people, and that local government must be made truly democratic and relevant to their needs". Preparation of proposals for local government re-organisation is proceeding and I intend to circulate them to local authorities for comment before making final decisions.

The Electoral (Amendment) Act, 1973, which became law on 9th April, 1973, made the following provisions regarding the reduction of the voting age:— It reduced the age for membership of local authorities from 21 to 18 years; it reduced the voting age at local government elections from 21 to 18 years; it effected a similar reduction in the voting age at elections of university members to the Seanad; it amended the law to enable electors to be registered at 18 instead of 21.

All elections, national and local, and all referenda will now be held on a franchise extended to these young people.

A complete and accurate register of electors is a vital part of the democratic machinery. Immediately on taking up appointment as Minister, I instructed my Department to carry out a general review of the system to see what improvements are possible. This review is proceeding in consultation with the registration authorities. The register now being prepared will be used at the local elections in June, 1974 and I have asked registration authorities to ensure that the standard of accuracy will be as high as possible. I recognise that accuracy depends to a large extent on the co-operation of the public and I have written to all Dáil Deputies inviting their assistance in fostering among the public generally and among constituency organisations and other local groups a keener awareness of the importance of having a really accurate register. I would like to repeat that plea now.

I have already in this House and elsewhere expressed my concern about the inequalities in representation which exist between the different local electoral areas in many counties. There are several instances where twice as many voters are required for election in one area as compared with the next within the same county. In general, these areas were drawn up over 30 years ago and have not been revised to take account of the changes in the distribution of population which have occurred since. While the statutory power in this matter rests with me, it is my opinion that full account should be taken of the views of the local council and of the needs of the local community. Therefore, I invited local authorities to submit proposals for the revision of their local electoral areas where such revision is considered necessary. My Department is at present examining the response of local councils to this invitation.

My Department has responsibility for the audit of the accounts of local authorities and other local bodies, such as health boards, most of which derive funds in whole or in part from local rates. The cost of this service in 1973-74 is estimated to be about £121,000 including salaries and travelling expenses. Fees charged to the bodies audited are expected to bring in £57,000.

Under the combined purchasing system, purchases by local authorities including health boards, are currently running at a level estimated at £6.5 million per year. The bulk of this expenditure relates to commodities manufactured or processed in this country. On the whole, the system continues to operate smoothly and affords local authorities a useful service.

As the Minister for Finance announced in his budget speech on the 16th May, the Government have decided to change the financial year to a calendar year basis in order to facilitate the co-ordination of economic and budgetary policies within the EEC. Owing to the very close ties between State and local expenditure, it has been decided that the local financial year must likewise be changed.

The necessary legislation to give effect to this proposal is at present being prepared by the Minister for Finance and it is hoped that the changeover will take effect from the 1st January, 1975 in the case of both the Exchequer financial year and the local financial year.

In the meantime, my Department have carried out a review of existing legislation concerning local authorities which will be affected by the changeover. The principal impact on the general public will arise from the alteration of the rating year. While this purely technical measure will not, of course, result in any extra costs on ratepayers, I am particularly concerned to ensure that they will be inconvenienced as little as possible by the change.

Arrangements are being made to hold during the next few months a series of seminars for local representatives at which all the implications of the calendar year for local authorities may be discussed.

Tá an tAire tar éis ráitis 60 leathanach a léamh amach dúinn. Ins an méid ar fad atá istigh ins an raiteas sin is trua liom nach bhfuil aon trácht ann faoin údarás áitiúil do na ceantair Ghaeltachta. Le linn an ollthoghachán i Mí Feabhra seo caite do gheall lucht an Chomhrialtais go gcuirfeadh siad údarás áitiúil speisialta ar bun gan mhoill do mhuintir na Gaeltachta dá n-éireódh leo dul isteach mar Rialtas. Tá a fhios againn nach bhfuil aon rud déanta ag an Rialtas nó ag an Aire seo ó shin i leith chun an údarás seo a chur ar bun ach, níos measa fós, níl trácht déanta acu ar bhunú an údaráis seo. Bhí sé beartaithe ag Rialtas Fhianna Fáil ceantracha toghacháin speisialta a chur ar bun do na Gaeltachtaí le haghaidh na dtoghachán áitiúla, le haghaidh na gcomhairlí contae ach os rud é gur thárla an t-athrú Rialtais is dócha nach ndéanfar aon rud faoi na Gaeltachtaí anois. Is mór an trua é. Cheap mé go mb'fhéidir go mbeadh rud éigin sa ráiteas fada seo mar gheall air ach níl agus na geallúintí a thug siad roimh an dtoghachán is cinnte nach bhfuil siad ag déanamh aon iarracht chun iad a chomhlíonadh. Orthu féin a bhéas an locht mar gheall air sin.

The Department of Local Government with its many tentacles which reach out into nearly every town and village in the country directly affects the lives of more people than any of the other Government Departments.

The houses we live in, the roads we travel, the air we inhale and the water we consume are governed and controlled by the Department. With the modern preference for urban dwelling the role of local government is becoming more and more important. Its influence extends over the whole environment in which we live and the quality of life we enjoy is largely dependent on the manner in which this Department carries out its various functions. It is also true to say that improvements in the standard of living must, of necessity, be an on-going thing. As man continually seeks more efficient ways of coping with his environment, it is imperative, especially in a democracy such as ours, that policy be designed to ensure that these higher standards are enjoyed by all the citizens and not just a privileged few.

It is the duty of any Minister for Local Government to push ahead bravely on two fronts—to seek and to encourage the highest environmental standards and to ensure their application benefits all citizens. The Minister's statement covers in a fairly extensive way the operations of his Department and, to a certain extent, outlines policy in relation to some of its future activities. The Minister has been very reluctant to give credit for past achievements or even to admit that great progress has been made. I am in the unusual position that up to the recent general election I occupied the office which the Minister now holds. There are only two Front Bench spokesmen on this side who are speaking on Departments in which they have had experience. The three and a half years which I spent in the Department of Local Government were devoted to increasing the Department's influence on the quality of life enjoyed by all our citizens. It would also probably be true that during those three and a half years the Department were given an opportunity to examine their role, to re-define it, to expand it and to modernise it. If the Minister has not chosen to pay much heed in his 60-page statement to past achievements of the Department, it is incumbent on me to make some reference to them here. One of the best ways of encouraging the Department to examine its role and to look into itself and, if possible, to redefine policies and outlooks and study its own operations is to establish a Departmental committee or to involve other Departments in an inter-Departmental committee. This is a good development because the staffs in the Departments appreciate the opportunity of looking at how their Department is running and not being continuously involved in day to day operations. Any organisation which continues dealing only with the immediate problems and does not take time off to consider how it is operating will not expand and modernise and eventually will not operate efficiently.

During that time a number of these committees which were established actually finalised their thinking and published some reports. I hope that this encouragement to the Department to look into individual problems and put ideas on paper will be continued by the present Minister. We had the report on local government re-organisation, a report on air and water pollution, a report on taxation in the building societies, and a report on building land prices, popularly known as the Kenny report. A series of reports had been published over the years on the whole question of local government finance and taxation. This threw up very useful information and gave the public and the Government an opportunity of getting local government taxation into perspective.

During that time the Department took a number of steps which improved matters and which will now operate to the benefit of the existing incumbent of the office of Minister. I am referring to the initiation in one case of the guaranteed order project which involved a major expansion of the activities of the National Building Agency. The Minister had some hard words to say about the guaranteed order project in his speech but that was to be expected because during his time in Opposition he severely criticised the operation of that programme. He does admit that it was originally introduced as an experiment. I shall return to it later to show that not only did the experiment succeed but that it has laid the foundation for a substantial increase in the output of local authority houses and that increase could not be achieved in a short period without the guaranteed order project and the knowledge and expertise gained in drawing it up and in its initial implementation.

The past three years of Fianna Fáil administration placed housing as one of the highest priorities and the output of new houses over the last three years, as is evident from the figures, showed continuous rapid and substantial increases in the number of new houses being completed. The situation was being reached where the output of new houses was capable of coping with the demand. It had been the experience in previous years that those seeking houses from local authorities were obliged in some instances to wait quite a number of years before securing a tenancy. The work of the Department in the past two years has, I think, eliminated the long delay for housing. That was a major achievement.

The Minister, from his short time in office, is well aware that to increase housing output is no easy task because one is dealing with a very complex matter involving a number of factors which greatly influence one's success or otherwise. The Government must create the environment which will allow all these factors to operate successfully. We in Fianna Fáil are justly proud of our record in regard to housing. The story is one of very great success. From a decade ago when 5,976 houses were being built in 1961-62 we come to 1970-71 when 13,671 houses were completed and 20,253 improved with improvement grants. That figure increased in 1971-72 to 15,921 and the improvements figure to 21,975. Last year, 1972-73, the last year in which I was responsible for housing, 21,647 houses were completed. Those figures are a remarkable record of housing achievement. The reconstruction or improvement grants for last year were 23,000.

To bring this about substantial capital sums were required but although increasing output and expenditure to match the demand is a fundamental need other measures were needed and were adopted to ensure a comprehensive approach to the whole matter of housing. Some of the initiatives taken under the Fianna Fáil administration in the last two or three years included the following: under the grants structure, the structure of housing grants was changed as the Minister is aware and reconstruction grants were increased and restructured. Changes in the new house grants were designed to help persons with modest means and involved increases from £75 to £100 in State and supplementary grants The maximum reconstruction grants were increased by up to 100 per cent from £200 to £400 for a three-roomed house and from £280 to £400 for a five-roomed house.

In order to encourage group water schemes the maximum grant payable per house was increased from £120 to £200. The guaranteed order project played a major part in increasing the output of local authority houses. The first phase of that project which the Minister deemed experimental comprised over 5,000 houses. I am convinced, and I think those who were involved with me in establishing that project are convinced that it was very beneficial and although it involved radical changes in the system of tendering and contracting for local authority houses it was the only way in which more local authority houses could be provided quickly for the people who needed them.

The limits on which subsidies are paid to local authorities to help keep the rents of their dwellings low were revised. The effect of that revision was to increase the subsidy for each house from £110 to £138 per year. That represents a contribution of £2.65 a week towards the rent of each new house currently provided at that time. The limits for loans and grants were kept under continuous review and increased twice during that period. The Minister said he would keep this matter under review and has granted some increases since he came into office. This is an area which needs constant watching to ensure that the grants and loan limits are realistic.

We are very proud of the new scheme of grants which we introduced for the allocation of houses for disabled persons. That new grant can range up to the full cost of the work for a person living in a local authority house or for two-thirds for other persons. The subsidy available for the housing sites provided by local authorities was doubled last year from £150 to £300 per site. I am glad to see that the Minister is intent on encouraging co-operative housing as this was an area in which we, the Fianna Fáil Government, were very keen to offer encouragement and assistance wherever needed. I reminded the local authorities on several occasions to make every possible facility available to groups anxious to build their own houses through co-operatives. The house price control system was also introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government.

We were proud to have initiated the final steps for the removal of slums in Dublin city. I recommend that the Minister should have a look at that particular aspect of housing in Dublin and try to complete the work I started there. He will find that it involves very complex matters. Certain people are not anxious to leave, even though the accommodation is diabolical; encouragement and inducements must be offered. At the same time this transfer must be handled in a sensible and sensitive way. The community in general are anxious to see the last of the Dublin slums.

The Minister will recognise that the devolving of responsibility for local authority housing on the local authorities by giving grant block allocations of capital to them was a Fianna Fáil idea which operated very successfully. It is being extended to group water schemes. An attempt was made to wipe out much of the red tape involved. I will refer to this matter later.

We also pressed ahead vigorously with the rehabilitation of itinerants. Votes for 18 year olds were brought forward by Fianna Fáil by way of referendum. That proposal was accepted, passed by a majority vote, and the vote is now available to those aged 18 and over. That improvement in the electoral law was introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government.

I do not like to interrupt the Deputy, but surely he will agree that the 18-years-olds had to wait for a change of Government to have the law changed.

The Minister is being facetious. He knows that the referendum held was Fianna Fáil-initiated legislation.

The 18-year-olds were not allowed to vote at the last general election.

The legislation, which was necessary, subsequent to the majority decision of the people at the referendum, was on the way and would have been brought forward, as the Minister knows. The Minister made extensions into local government elections but I am referring to the franchise for general elections.

In that period a new amenity grant scheme was introduced in the Department. The local improvements scheme for the repair of rural roads and lanes was substantially expanded. The swimming pool programme was started and the Irish Water Safety Association was established. The new Road Safety Association was prepared by the Fianna Fáil Government and my successor's contribution was to change the name I had given from the Irish Road Safety Association to the National Road Safety Assocation.

I changed some of the personnel.

The Planning Appeals Bill was promised and, as he knows from being in the Department, it was at a very advanced stage. It was proposed to establish an independent commission to separate from the Minister to decide any planning appeals which came before the Department. He also knows that a Motorways Bill was prepared.

That Bill was prepared since 1971 but the Deputy was afraid to bring it into the House.

That is not true. The Minister must realise some of the difficulties in office and should not be so facile when dealing with some of the points I am making.

The Motorways Bill would have been a major step forward in assisting the construction of the modern network of motorways. I would urge him to bring it before the House as soon as possible.

The Deputy did not bring it in for two years.

An Foras Forbartha underwent some major expansion in its activities. The Minister should ensure that it is fully financed and encouraged to continue in its independent way its critical examination of many areas of major importance for the running of his Department and of interest to the community generally.

Expenditure under the various headings was increased very substantially during that period. As housing is the greatest priority, it is important that the House should recognise the commitment of Fianna Fáil to housing. The public and total capital expenditure on housing and in the period to which I am referring was as follows— I think it is necessary to write this into the record—in 1971 the public capital expenditure was £31.35 million, the total capital expenditure £65 million; in 1971-72 the public capital expenditure had increased to £39.48 million and the total capital investment in housing was £88 million; in 1972-73 the public capital expenditure was £45.04 million, and the total capital investment in housing was £112 million.

The percentage increase in that two-year period in public capital expenditure is 44 per cent, and in the total capital investment in housing, 72 per cent. That is a substantial increase in public spending on housing and is the clearest and simplest way to show conclusively the commitment of Fianna Fáil to a substantial expansion in the housing programme to meet the needs of all citizens and to cope with the demand as near as possible to the time when it arose. The total capital expenditure on housing last year, given at £112 million, is correct; but one could add to that figure another £20 million which has been spent on subsidies, which makes a total of £132 million altogether. Those were substantial increases in each year, and it was to be expected that in this succeeding year there would again be a substantial increase in the capital allocated. The Minister has referred to increases for this year in his statement, but made no reference to the increases in past years under the previous Administration.

The Capital expenditure on sanitary services, which goes hand in hand with the housing programme, also shows a substantial increase. In 1970-71 the capital expenditure was £4.8 million; in 1971-72, £6.26 million; in 1972-73, £9.93 million. The Minister, who is so fond of quoting the provisional allocation provided by the previous Government, should recognise that if—and I do not say that it is—the allocation of the previous Administration is a valid figure for him to quote, then he must know that the provisional allocation of the previous Administration for capital expenditure on sanitary services for this year was £12.95 million, which is exactly the figure which he has provided in his own Estimate.

It was no such thing.

Yes, it was. The Minister, in dealing with the capital allocated for housing chooses to demonstrate that his figure is so much greater than our figure——

60 per cent. greater.

——but when one goes into this, one eventually finds oneself getting childish about the matter in playing one figure against the other, but just to clarify it——

I should be grateful if the Deputy would quote the reference for the figures he has outlined.

Quote the reference?

The air.

I have no reference except my memory. If the Minister wishes to confirm that the figure I have quoted was not the figure provisionally allocated around December of last year by Fianna Fáil, then that is fair enough. That is only the figure which was provisionally provided for. As the Member well knowns, those figures can be adjusted close to the time of the budget before these items are actually published in the capital budget. Final meetings of the Government often involve changes in these figures, but the figure we had decided upon well back before the election time, which would have been in December, I would imagine, was £12.95 million, and that is the figure the Minister himself announced on the followings budget day several months later.

We increased the Fianna Fáil Estimate by 60 per cent. The Deputy cannot get away from that.

On the capital expenditure on sanitary services?

Fair enough. The Minister has already been caught out in this House quoting figures, and he has had to rise afterwards and correct them. He should be a little more careful before he starts criticising my figures. So far I have given just a brief summary of some of the achievements of the past three years. Had my successor in office taken up where I had left off, I suppose any regrets I might feel at being removed from this important work might have been lessened, but of course he did not. Therefore one can well imagine my dismay at the series of statements emanating from the Minister since March 14th.

The Minister has dropped the hatchet on some five schemes and proposals that were in operation or were planned. In regard to the whole field of local government reorganisation into which so much time and effort had been put, about which so much consultation had taken place, on which the thoughts of many people had been concentrated, it would have been a major turning point in local government administration if the broad proposals were to be implemented by legislation. All of that great promise to reform the whole system, which is there since the days of the British and is based on antiquated legislation, has been dropped by the Minister. I wish to quote from a speech made by the Minister at the opening of a housing scheme and reported in The Irish Press of 25th September, 1973:

Rejecting the Lynch Government's White Paper on Local Government Reorganisation, Mr. Tully said he wanted to make it clear that it is not now intended to implement that Government's proposals.

It is a very sad day for local government. We are so far behind other democracies in our system that it is getting well beyond the time when we must revitalise the whole structure of local government and local bodies, and I would urge on the Minister to have a serious rethink about this whole question of reorganisation.

To give a very simple example of what is involved here, I would refer to a television programme which dealt with Ballymun, and part of which I happened to be watching the other night. One of the ladies of gentlemen who were interviewed in that programme said: "The whole scheme is crazy. The corporation sweep one side of the street and the county council sweep the other." That in a simple way illustrates the problem that exists in Dublin. The whole area of administration here is seriously in need of revamping, and the proposal we put before the people was the establishment of one authority for that large urban area. It was one of my great regrets that I was not in a position to implement fully the proposals for reorganisations. I do not want to go into them in detail here; they have been published and my thoughts on them have been published. My views on this reorganisation are well known and were generally accepted by the community as being praiseworthy and worthwhile. I think those involved in local government administration will admit that they are absolutely essential if the system is to operate successfully in the future.

That is one of the proposals on which the hammer dropped. Another one which we mentioned at Question Time here today was the city offices for the Dublin Corporation. From what I can gather—it has not been made very clear—the whole proposal has been put in jeopardy, after many years of planning, special legislation being passed here, public competitions for the design, a very big planning appeal brought before the then Minister for Local Government and the grant of planning permission, which was given after careful consideration of all points. Having gone through all that the process over a number of years, the project started. I think that there was some activity in relation to the foundations. Then, out of the blue, the Minister announced that the city offices are not to go ahead. I would like the Minister to explain whether the stoppage is temporary or permanent. Is the building of these offices stopped for all time?

Deputy Molloy knows a lot about it all.

Perhaps the Minister is not in a humour to be helpful. A public statement was made.

The question was to be reviewed and discussed. Deputy Molloy knows whether that means temporary or permanent stoppage.

Deputy Moore said he was raising this matter on the Adjournment.

If it is to be raised on the Adjournment I would like to keep some "gems" to give him in reply.

Deputy Moore has not been allowed to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Nach mór an trua é sin.

It was not allowed because the Minister's Estimate is in the House.

A number of factors influenced me in relation to that planning appeal. Various factors had to be balanced one against the other. The final decision was to grant it. People qualified in planning recommended that it be granted. The most serious aspect of this is the grave shortage of office accommodation. The corporation claimed this shortage existed. From reports that seems to be true. The staff are gravely dissatisfied with the conditions in which they are expected to work.

And rightly so.

They have been very patient because for a number of years they were aware of the plan to construct one central office to house the staff of the corporation in one area.

They were aware of this in 1970 when the Fianna Fáil Government applied the knife to it.

The staff were prepared to put up with the inconveniences in the expectation that new buildings would be provided within a reasonable period of time. I do not know what they feel now.

They could not but be dissatisfied and disturbed. In fairness to them a clear, concise statement on this whole question is necessary. The hámmer dropped on the scheme.

The hatchet also fell on what was promised to us by the Minister on several occasions during the Summer Recess, and that was that the Minister would introduce legislation to rationalise and modernise the building societies. This was to be done during the autumn session of Parliament. We are in the autumn session now. The Taoiseach gave a list of legislation which he proposes to bring before the House during this session. This list did not contain any mention of legislation dealing with the building societies.

The Deputy said that this legislation was prepared in his time. Does he even know what we are talking about?

The Minister makes a lot of statements like that. People are beginning to find out about this. Time has been spent in studying the question of the building societies. The Minister is aware that a report was published on taxation in the building societies. This report was helpful in any examination of the financial structures of the building societies. I read that report. It certainly was not a radical document. It is helpful to have that document. The amount of work done in the Department up to now is sufficient to allow any Minister to to make up his mind to have the legislation prepared and, as we were promised, brought before the Parliament. The hatchet was dropped on that proposal. When queried on this, the Taoiseach said that there did not seem to be any need now for such legislation because everything in the building societies is all right.

We have not yet seen the legislation dealing with the motorways. The Minister referred to it in his speech. It may or may not have been dropped. I hope it has not been dropped. We have not seen any Bill dealing with planning appeals. Seven months have passed since the Minister took over.

The Deputy had it from 1971.

The Minister is in office for seven months. The whole field of planning appeals and the fact that they are decided by the Minister of the day was highly criticised by Fine Gael and Labour when they were in Opposition. Many of the speakers from those parties liked to colour their contributions by indicating that all might not be correct in regard to the manner in which the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary decided on appeals. This type of accusation is easy to make and is very unfair. The Minister, having been in office now for some time can support me in saying that there was never any underhand dealing or anything wrong in the manner in which appeals were decided. The highest standards of integrity were applied in the making of decisions.

Many decisions were nullified a fortnight before the Government was changed. The Deputy, when Minister, did not deal with them himself.

I was there until 1 a.m. many times.

I had hoped to see some positive action in regard to pollution of air and water. A report was published. It was comprehensive. It provided a basis from which decisions could be made in regard to the introduction of legislation. We have not had that legislation yet.

Despite all the passionate appeals from the then Opposition for a commission to decide on planning appeals there has been no development in this regard, although these people have now been in Government for seven months. There is also the whole question of land prices and of the Kenny Commission, which was established to inquire into the question of the legal, administrative and constitutional difficulties which confront any Government in their endeavours to deal in a constitutional and legal way with the land prices question. Although that report has been published, no action has been taken on it.

The Deputy received the original copy of that report on the 13th March, but I did not see the report for some considerable time afterwards.

It was in the Department on 14th March.

The Deputy took away the original copy.

It should have been in the Department when the Minister took office. Judging from the sentiments expressed by the then Opposition I would have expected the Minister to have sought out the report immediately on taking office. However, there has been a great silence in so far as the report is concerned. I am aware of what is contained in it but I am not in a position now to take any action in regard to it. I accept to a certain extent that what the report contained was complied for me as Minister and I am retaining some degree of confidentiality until such time as the Minister makes a statement on its contents.

The public must realise that the hatchet has fallen on many of these matters, that no action has been taken where action was expected. The impetus has been removed from the promotion of road and water safety and from the itinerant settlement programme, three areas which are being seriously neglected.

But there are areas where the Minister decided to continue the work of his predecessor, although he has claimed in a number of these cases that he was the innovator.

As reported in The Irish Press of the 25th September, the Minister said that to help urgent expansion the NBA had been asked to carry out a special emergency programme to supplement the output of the local authority. Without the guaranteed order programme it would not have been possible for the Minister to have made that statement and the experiments that had been carried out in previous years——

At the expense of the working class.

No. That statement is very unfair coming from the Minister, who has been critical of the programme but who, when opening one of the schemes, was high in his praise of the houses built under that project. When he visited the houses I understand that some of the tenants were lavish in their praise of these dwellings and expressed their gratitude to the Minister in that regard. I do not know whether he accepted their gratitude but the houses are of a good standard and many thousand families are now enjoying a home of their own because of the success of the project.

Some of the houses were good but many of them were shoddy and had pokey little rooms into which one would hesitate to put an animal, let alone a human being. The programme should never have been allowed to begin.

I would not agree with that. The standards were not shoddy and neither was there any attempt at a diminishing of standards, as the Minister claimed.

Of course there were such efforts.

There were minimum standards laid down and these were maintained. In many cases the standards achieved were higher than what had been attained in previous local authority programmes. For instance, many of the dwellings had central heating, which dwellings constructed up to that time did not have. That was a substantial improvement. I do not approve of small houses but there was a range of houses sizes and the Minister must be aware now of the difficulty of encouraging local authorities to become involved at all in house building.

I do not experience that trouble at all.

The newspapers have been reporting speeches of the Minister's in which he has been pleading with the local authorities to get on with housing.

I have asked them to do better.

I had to do the same. It is all right in Dublin, where the authorities are modern in their thinking, but there are some local authorities who would only get on with this work if a rocket were placed under them. I made no selection of the range of houses that should be made available. These decisions were taken by the local authorities concerned so that elected members would have been involved in decisions as to the types of houses to be built.

I shall not allow them to build the type of shabby, pokey houses which were built during my predecessor's term of office.

I would not allow such houses to be built.

The Deputy allowed this to happen in the first place.

There have been many cases in which the Minister has claimed responsibility for local authorrity houses.

Sixty as against 24.

As reported in The Irish Times of October 9th, the Minister, speaking at the opening of a housing scheme, said that when he became Minister for Local Government he had cut down immediately the shuffling to and from the Department of plans for housing schemes, that in the previous month he had devolved responsibility for the planning and execution of all schemes of 60 houses or fewer to the local authorities and that responsibility for providing the necessary houses lay now with these authorities. That was not an honest statement.

Of course, it was.

The Minister claimed that immediately on assuming office he cut down the shuffling of plans to and from the Department.

It was going on until I took over, but perhaps that was not the Minister's fault.

I would recommend to the Minister that he read my Estimate speech of the 20th June, 1972 in which he will see that this devolution of responsibility was mentioned by me then.

For 24 houses, but it is necessary to insist on some local authorities doing the work. The Deputy did not do this as Minister.

I shall have more to say on this matter later. I would refer the Minister also to circular N5/70 which contained instructions to local authorities and the manner in which the whole devolution of responsibility for housing was being expanded. All you did was to bring forward to a date in 1973 the date I had fixed for 1974. That was your contribution. I do not mind that, but what I do not like is the idea of speeches coming from the Minister in which he claims credit for work begun by me. You should stand on your own and not try to ride on my back.

I would be in a bad way if I had to do that.

Perhaps if the Deputy would direct his remarks to the Chair we might avoid these many interruptions.

I suppose it is a question of politics when a Minister makes statements claiming credit for every achievements. To take the question of the establishment of a road safety association, for instance, all the preparatory work in this regard had been done before the Minister took office. The Safety First Association, of which Father Kennedy is chairman, have been carrying on very good work over the years. I explained to Father Kennedy that I, as Minister, was intent on expanding road safety promotion above and beyond the level of activities in which his association were involved. The association, I pointed out to Father Kennedy, was not active in every county but I wanted a national association off the ground which would be active in every county.

When this was explained to Father Kennedy he accepted my good intention in this regard. As the Minister knows I wrote to various voluntary organisations involved in promoting road safety, motor clubs et cetera, and I invited a certain gentleman, who had been chairman of the Insurance Review Committee, to act as chairman. This gentleman accepted my invitation. In my view it was a gross insult to that fine gentleman, who had made a major contribution to the insurance world, and gave up his job to concentrate his efforts on producing that report on the insurance—a report which contained very special reference to the need for greater promotion of road safety—to withdraw my invitation. I thought that a man who expressed the sentiments contained in that report, who was obviously concerned about and understood the problem, would be the ideal person to head such a new organisation. This gentleman was very happy to accept my invitation to head the new organisation but when the change of Government took place the Minister informed him that his services were not required.

Very politely.

That was the Minister's prerogative but it was not very nice. It would not have made any difference to the Minister or to me. When the invitation had been issued to this gentleman it was rather small minded of the Minister to make the change.

It could have made a lot of difference for the Road Safety Association.

When the invitation was issued it was rather smallminded of the Minister to withdraw it.

I would prefer if no mention was made of persons outside of this House and that neither blame nor praise be attached to them.

There were other occasions when the Minister claimed to be the innovator. He did so in relation to the construction of special housing schemes for the elderly at Vizes Court in Limerick city. When the Minister attended the opening of this housing scheme the great Coalition propaganda machine was put to work. This scheme was heralded as a new scheme to promote the construction of houses for the elderly. There was references to this scheme in one of the papers of today. This report tells us of new plans to help the elderly. It goes on to state that elderly and disabled people throughout the country are to be helped by new projects being introduced by the Minister for Health.

As the Minister is aware, these schemes are operated by the Department of Local Government and the Department of Health help out in the provision of homes for elderly people. However, the housing scheme referred to in Vizes Court in Limerick was initiated by the local authority in conjunction with the Department of Health and the National Building Agency. The "machine" claimed that this was a new one, a new idea being promoted by the Coalition Minister.

Would the Deputy quote that?

It was on the television twice, on the radio and in all the newspapers. The people were told of this "wonderful new scheme". A lady in Vizes Court wrote to me after the scheme was opened and enclosed a cutting from one of the Limerick newspapers. She told me that she had read about the Minister opening this scheme and went on to recall the day I had visited the area when she lived in what she describe as the slums. She pointed out to me that she thought it only right that she should write to thank me for helping them in achieving this fine housing scheme. She told me that the newspapers and others were giving the credit to the present Minister but they were aware of who was responsible for the scheme.

During my speech at the opening of that scheme I said that the scheme was started under the direction of my predecessor.

The Minister said that under his breath and it was not in the official handout, nor was it quoted by the "propaganda machine". This is the trend I have been noticing since the Minister took up office.

The Deputy did this himself and nothing was done by the Department of Local Government?

No. These schemes were initiated under a Fianna Fáil administration. That is a fact and there is no point in adding to or taking from it. Reading a lot of the statements issued lately one would imagine that the house price control idea was something the Minister had brought in. However, the Minister is aware that this was in existence before he took office. It is not really what one does but to have the name of doing it. That seems to be the Minister's policy. There is also another saying that truth will win out in the end.

Seven months have passed and, though much was promised, the real truth is that those seven months were spent devising the "gerrymander Bill" Which we had before us last week.

I will bring in the Deputy's "gerrymander Bill" before this debate finishes.

The Bill was rapidly pulled out and I notice that it is not being debated this week. The Minister must have got a bellyfull of it last week.

In the meantime that Bill should not be debated or adverted to in this House.

The Deputy will not be in the House when I produce his particular document.

The Minister made changes in the house purchase scheme for tenants of local authority houses. The strange thing about this scheme is that, when one works out the price under the system devised by the Minister, which is rather novel, quite a large number of local authority houses work out more expensive than under the previous scheme which the Minister's scheme was supposed to replace. What has happened?

Is the Deputy really serious? The Deputy should speak with Matt Larkin about that matter. The Deputy is working on 1957 volumes.

I have been informed by the officials of Galway Corporation and I have seen figures in respect of that city.

We are entering into the realm of argument across the House again.

This scheme has produced very unusual results. It was devised to replace a house purchase scheme which was drawn up under the 1966 Housing Act. It was implied that all local authority tenants were to benefit from the new scheme to be introduced by the Coalition Government. What has happened is that quite a substantial number of the houses when priced under the Coalition scheme work out at a higher price than the scheme it was supposed to replace.

I have been informed by the officials of Galway Corporation that, generally speaking, all the houses built since 1948 are dearer under the Coalition scheme than they were under the old scheme. However, the Minister has a saver in that one can choose the lower of the two prices. The result is that there is no great improvement on the old scheme.

If the Government had not been changed last March these houses would be £2,000 dearer since the 1st April.

That is not so.

Of course, it is.

It is not and it is not fair of the Minister to say it. The best of luck to a tenant of a local authority house if he can buy his house at the lower price. I am not going to object to that. I have certain sympathies with some persons, especially those who are living in very old local authority houses. In some cases the value put on them could be deemed to have been excessive.

I found myself in a very awkward situation in dealing with this problem. If changes were made in any one part of the scheme they should apply fairly in every other local authority area. In their 14-point plan the Minister and the Coalition parties promised tenants that they would introduce a new house purchase scheme, a fair house purchase scheme. The exact words were: "A fair national system of tenant purchase will be introduced." Instead, many houses have worked out dearer. I believe that in Limerick the majority of the houses worked out dearer. I have not gone down through each local authority area to find out what the situation is, but I have heard reports.

At any rate it was promised that it would be fair. Is it fair that, if I buy my local authority house at the price at which the local authority offered it to me on 1st June, and my neighbour buys his house after 1st July, he should pay less? We are neighbours living beside each other for 15 to 20 years; we could even work together in the one factory; we could even be earning the same amount of money; we could even have the same size family; to all intents and purposes we could be identically circumstanced. One of us buys four weeks ahead of the other. Under the Minister's scheme, if the house was cheaper under the new scheme than it was under the old scheme, the man who bought on 1st June must pay a higher price for the same house as his neighbour who bought on 1st July.

I thought Deputy Molloy was arguing that they were dearer.

I am referring to the ones that were cheaper. The Minister loses track of every argument. I have dealt with the ones that were dearer.

110,000 of them.

The Minister will not sidetrack me because this is crucial. It was promised that it would be a fair scheme.

For those people who were buying the houses.

Is it fair that in the case of people in those circumstances, living beside each other in similar houses in a terrace for the same length of time, because one man buys on 1st June he may find himself paying £400 to £500 more, or more in some cases.

Or £1,000, or £1,500.

I am sure in other cases he could be paying even more than £1,000. The Minister says he could be paying £1,000 more than his neighbour who bought four weeks later.

Because he was fooled by Fianna Fáil.

I do not consider that a fair scheme.

It is not but you were the people who introduced it.

It is very hard to have patience with the Minister.

The Deputy does not have to.

We did not introduce this new scheme.

You introduced the old one and it will not be forgotten to you.

The Coalition said in their 14-point plan that their schemes would be fair. Does the Minister honestly and sincerely consider that the situation which he has created is fair? The Minister came into office on 14th March. A person bought the house on 1st June and he is asked to pay £1,000 more plus interest which increases it if he takes a 25 year loan. That is not fair. I notice that the Minister has already refused to speak to a deputation from Dublin County Council.

That is wrong.

That is the newspaper report. If it is wrong I will withdraw it.

I am telling the Deputy it is wrong.

Was a letter not quoted to the effect that the Minister had refused to discuss this question, this anomaly, in the purchase scheme with a deputation from Dublin County Council?

No. Dublin County Council never even asked to see me.

Dublin Corporation.

Dublin Corporation, yes, and I am meeting them.

The Minister changed his mind?

Did the Minister not write and say he did not see any point in meeting them? He changed his mind afterwards.

I said there would be no point in discussing it but that I was prepared to meet them.

We must have orderly debate.

It was indicated to us who rely on the newspapers for most of our information that the Minister had said there was no point in meeting them and that he refused to meet the Dublin Corporation.

I will not take Fianna Fáil's chestnuts out of the fire for them.

The newly appointed commissioners deemed this to be a severe affront to their dignity——

The Fianna Fáil TDs did.

——and a slap in the face from the Minister. Obviously wiser counsels have prevailed. The Minister has reconsidered his original decision and has now decided that it would be better for himself in his own interests to agree to meet this deputation.

In the interests of the country and not in my own. The Deputy is judging me by his own standards.

If the Minister has indicated that he will meet them but that really the whole thing is a waste of time because he will not change his mind.

When I see them I will tell them that.

That has been indicated here just now again. When I was Minister I personally held the view that some houses were overvalued. That was only a personal view. In the main the purchase schemes had been sanctioned before I was appointed Minister but they were current during my time as Minister. One of the obstacles in my way to changing the price in the purchase scheme was that I would have to take into consideration those who had already purchased. It is far too facile on the part of the Minister to leave those people out in the cold and change the prices as and from a certain date which happens to be 1st July. This is a retrograde step and it is a decision which the Minister will regret. If it is any consolation to those who find themselves in this position— and, after all, the number could be substantial but arrangements could be made to accommodate them; if the Minister is not prepared to make a change and to allow these tenants——

We have not made a final decision on this. Under the Labourers' Act they could buy their houses but the Deputy's Government changed that, and robbed them for years. We changed that.

If the Minister will not grant an allowance to those people who purchased their house under the old scheme I can tell him that, as soon as Fianna Fáil come back into power, we will correct that situation.

The Deputy is trying to get votes now. They did not do it for 16 years.

As soon as Fianna Fáil go back in office——

That will be never.

——those tenants who have been left out in the cold will be catered for by Fianna Fáil.

What will Fianna Fáil do? Will they reverse the decision they took themselves? They robbed the people for years.

Once a decision was made to reduce those prices it must apply to all tenants, in all fairness, instead of having arbitrary dates leaving certain persons out and giving the benefit to others who purchased at a certain date.

Fianna Fáil trooped through the Lobby on the question of redundancy. They would not go back three months to catch the people who were robbing the workers. They said they could not have retrospective legislation. They cannot have it both ways. They are trying to make election promises now when it is too late.

When we go back into office——

Which will be never.

——we will correct the anomaly to the benefit of the tenants who purchased under the old scheme. We owe them that.

You owe them a lot more than that but you will never get the opportunity of paying it to them.

We had other innovations by the Minister. For the first time in quite a number of years the Government decided they would control the interest rates on mortgages charged by building societies. Up to that time all the thinking in this field had led to the conclusion that the building societies should be allowed to operate freely in the competitive money market and fix their own interest rates. The decision of the Government to control interest rates was a disaster and the whole community has been affected by it since then. I shall come back to this later.

If we had not taken action, the rate would have been 11? per cent from 23rd May and 12½ per cent since the last increase. The Deputy should be aware of this.

It is an area in which the Government should not have interfered at that level. The Minister gave the impression here when he announced the 10 per cent rate that he was going to be the friend of all mortgage holders, that he was going to decide the level of interest. We found out afterwards that the Minister was very foolish to make that kind of claim, that the forces in the money market would operate irrespective of his action——

It should be 12½ per cent according to the Deputy.

In order to try to live up to that promise of 10 per cent loans, which was an increase on what had been available previously, the Minister had to get the Government to come in with a subsidy in an effort to hold the interest rates. Naturally, the forces outside were stronger than the Minister and the interest rates went up. The Minister's intervention was of little benefit to anybody——

It was worth 1½ per cent to each borrower.

The Minister could have granted the subsidy without controlling the interest rates. It was the first announcement the Minister made, that he was going to control the interest rates——

I did not say that.

The fact that the Government were coming into this area created a certain element of scare and panic among those who were investing with the building societies.

There has been more money going into the building societies in the last few months than when the Minister was in office.

That argument does not hold any force. We are living in an inflationary economy and to argue in that fashion does not prove anything.

Money builds houses and that is what the Deputy would like to see stopped.

Is the Minister saying that in the last three or four months the building societies have been contented and happy with the flow of funds? If the Minister is saying that, he is not telling the truth. We know of the announcements from the building societies which expressed grave concern at the trend in relation to the flow of funds and we are aware that the societies considered they were in a serious situation.

The Deputy can do as much harm as he likes——

The harm was done when the Minister decided to control interest rates; it was a foolish, naive decision on the part of the Government. It has not resulted in benefit to anybody, either to the mortgage holders or to the investors——

The building societies have more money than they had under Fianna Fáil.

The Government should not have interfered in this matter. The building societies have been involved in this business for much longer than the Government or the Minister—

Is the Deputy saying that the rate should go up to 12½ per cent?

The 14-point programme spoke of the immediate declaration of a housing emergency and it set a target of 25,000 houses this year. I shall not ask the Minister why he did not declare a housing emergency. That statement sounded very attractive; it was the right thing to throw at the electorate and they liked it. It was one of the promises the Coalition made and it helped them to gain some support in getting into office.

The truth is that a declaration of that kind could achieve nothing but, naturally, the people were not expected to know that. There was an implication that the declaration could solve all our problems but the people were not told the declaration would not build one house. The Minister knows by now that what builds houses are resources of finance, manpower, serviced land and materials. Those are the four primary resources that influence the housing programme and that decide whether increases or decreases are obtained——

We achieved greater increases than Fianna Fáil.

The Fianna Fáil Government clearly recognised this fact and adopted policies to ensure that the resources devoted to housing were maintained at the highest sustainable level. The success of the Fianna Fáil policy can be seen from the upward trend of housing output during the years, but in particular in the past three years.

In the last year the Fianna Fáil Government played a trick regarding the 2,000 extra houses——

Between 1971 and 1972 there was a 26 per cent increase in housing.

Fianna Fáil had no money to pay the grants?

Playing acrobatics with the figures will not change the facts——

The reason Fianna Fáil had an extra 2,000 houses——

The Minister should allow the Deputy to make his speech.

I hate to hear people tell untruths.

I am not telling an untruth. The figures published in the Department's booklet "Quarterly Bulletin of Housing Statistics" give us the completions for last year as 21,647, which is a 26 per cent increase on the previous year. Interestingly enough, the figure of 25,000 which the Minister chose is only a 15 per cent increase on the number of houses Fianna Fáil built last year as compared with our 26 per cent increase in the previous year——

The figure for the previous year was 13,000.

No matter how one looks at the figures, one must admit that they show a solid achievement and that is what the people want. The people who propounded the housing emergency idea imagine housing policy can be operated in a kind of economic vacuum. We always realised that progress in housing was tied up with economic and social progress as a whole and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding himself. Whatever views the Minister may have had on this matter before he went into office, the reality must have been brought home to him since.

I accuse the Coalition Government of playing the numbers game. They pick a figure of 25,000 houses a year out of the air and try to give the impression that housing is simply a matter of getting the numbers right; if we could build 25,000 houses instead of 21,647, then our problems would be solved. Unfortunately, housing is much more complex than that. I should like to remind the Minister that, when we were building 15,000 a year, the Labour Party were saying we should be building 100,000 houses in five years, 25,000 houses a year and, when we exceeded 20,000 houses a year, the Labour Party said it was time we upped the ante and built 25,000 houses.

Fianna Fáil never exceeded 20,000 houses.

It was a nice round figure and it was expected to have magical connotations for the community. This was something new, something dynamic; the building of so many houses was really something. In actual fact, it was only 15 per cent greater than the number built the previous year and the number built the previous year was only 6 per cent more than the number built the year before and so, in actual fact, it represented a drop and not an increase in the rate of output.

It is quite clear to anyone that the selection of that figure has no scientific basis whatsoever. It was a number pulled out of the air and I should like now to explode the myth that this figure of 25,000 was ever a worthy target and also to explode the myth that it needed a change of government to achieve it. I have already shown that the resources of finance, manpower, serviced land, et cetera, are all factors which determine the level of housing output in any year. The upward trend occurred during the past decade of Fianna Fáil Administration, as is shown by the 26 per cent increase last year; the foundations were laid for a continuation of that upward trend and nothing the Minister may say can change that fact.

The number of houses begun or authorised in 1971-72 was 21,627. The following year the number of houses completed was 21,647. One can see that the number of starts in 1971 nearly equalled the number of completions in the following year and anybody who is searching for patterns or trends or trying to make projections in relation to housing output must go to the figure for housing begun or authorised. That is the only way in which you can really assess what the output will be in the following year, provided all the other factors are OK. We come to 1971-72 and we find that the number of houses begun or authorised was 32,797 or roughly 11,000 more than had been started in the previous year.

What could they be built with when you did not provide enough money to build 20,000?

I was not there to provide money. If I had been there, as the Minister well knows, the money would have been provided as it always was provided by Fianna Fáil in the past.

I got the figures the then Minister proposed to spend on housing and it would not build 20,000 houses. Deputy Molloy cannot get away with that one.

The Minister knows I have been talking hard facts, facts which have not been given a great deal of publicity up to now, and the Minister is trying to sidetrack me to prevent me making the point and getting the information across to the public.

That is a lot of nonsense.

He is trying to distract me by quoting a figure to me and telling me that the previous Fianna Fáil Administration were going to provide £25 million for local authority housing. Is that what the Minister was going to say?

Six weeks before the budget was due the Deputy, as Minister for Local Government, had not made provision for more than 20,000 houses and he cannot get away from that. That hare will not run any longer.

The figure the Minister has quoted is £5 million under the figure he eventually put in the budget. How any government could be expected to know months in advance of the publication of the capital programme——

You did not know in March.

How could we be expected to know in January? The Minister knows the election was declared.

And you and Fianna Fáil were preparing to go back again. Do not forget that. The Deputy is caught now and he cannot get out of it.

If the Minister takes a look at the way in which the Department's finances were operating while I was in the Department——

I have been looking at it.

——he will know that until the figures are printed one cannot be certain as to what amount exactly is going to be provided. The Minister knows that I was, as the officials can tell him, very successful in getting increases because my colleagues in the Government were committed to housing as a first priority and were amenable to increasing capital expenditure on housing.

The Deputy, as Minister, was beaten down to 20,000 houses, for goodness sake!

We had made no final decision. It was hardening up but had not reached the stage when final decisions had to come. This was in January. The budget would not come out until April or May.

The Deputy left on 15th March.

It is a very weak point. It does not make sense and bears no relation to the financial trends over the past three years. I was making the point—the Minister is very keen to distract me—that the number of house starts in 1971-72 was 21,627 and the following year completions were 21,647. In 1972-73 starts were 32,797. The Coalition estimate that they will build 25,000 houses. It is obvious that figure is well below the capacity of the industry. With improved building methods, with more rapid forms of construction, the starts in the previous year should reflect to a certain degree, the completions in the following year, provided adequate finance, manpower and all the other resources are available.

I have been making the point that the Fianna Fáil Government recognised very clearly that in the main the four resources I have mentioned play a very important part in housing output. The construction industry were encouraged by the stability of the economy, a vital factor, and also by the known Government housing policy of securing maximum improvement in the housing conditions of our people as a whole in the minimum time consistent with available resources, and the construction industry under Fianna Fáil developed to the point where capacity was no longer an inhibiting factor on output.

The availability of building sites is, of course, one of the factors playing on the situation. As the Minister took so much time with his statement, I think I could use some of the time of the House to deal with some of the steps the previous administration had taken to deal with the question of serviced land. The local authorities had undertaken a work programme for the provision of major drainage schemes which were to open up considerable tracts of building land.

In the Dublin area the Dodder Valley scheme which, when completed, will open up 6,300 acres of new land for development and the greater Dublin drainage scheme expected to open up a further 11,000 acres.

There is planning for the future and there is a heavy commitment to the provision of substantial amounts of capital by the previous administration. The acquisition of land by local authorities in advance of their needs was something that we always encouraged and the number of sites available to local authorities or being acquired by them for housing purposes was increased from 34,000 at the end of 1967-68 to about 65,000 sites in December, 1972. That type of operation on that scale would enable local authorities to control in a very real way not only the price of land but also the type of development that would be allowed on it. The House is aware that the Fianna Fáil Government provided a special allocation of £3 million to Dublin Corporation for land acquisition and that money was used in 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70 and enabled Dublin Corporation to build up a substantial land bank. About 1,900 acres were bought with those funds and at the end of 1972, coming near the end of the last Administration, the three Dublin housing authorities had acquired or were in the process of acquiring sufficient land for the provision of 25,000 houses. Compare that with 12,000 sites in their possession at the end of 1967-68. Those were some of the major steps taken by the previous Administration to ensure the availability of serviced land for housing purposes mainly.

We encouraged the construction of private houses and we recognised the important role that building societies play in financing private housing and the importance of attracting funds in a competitive market. To ensure the success of the building societies' operations we allowed them to fix their own interest rates. That policy was very successful and the funds flowed in. To show the House the extent to which the funds flowed in, I shall give the House the net increase in shares and deposits. In 1969-70 the net increase in the shares and deposits of building societies was £7.7 million, in 1970-71—the year I became Minister —the net increase had gone to £17.1 million.

Was there a bank strike or anything that year?

The following year there was no bank strike, 1971-72, and it had gone to £29.8 million. In 1972-73 it was £34.9 million. There is a rapid rise in the flow of funds to the building societies demonstrated in those figures which are the facts and are contained in the Department's statistical booklet on housing matters.

To increase the level of local authority housing output I have already told the House that the guaranteed order programme was initiated. The initial objectives in establishing this project were realised in the successful development of the first phase of the project which involved some 5,000 houses. That project added substantially to the national construction resources available for housing. It evoked new designs and promoted the use of new construction methods and materials. In December, 1973 all local authorities were sent a circular outlining the second phase of the guaranteed order project. This involved a reserve part of capital allocation being used through the National Building Agency to a preplanned five-year programme. At least two contractors in each major area would be invited to submit proposals for houses according generally with approved outline plans. That was the second phase into which we were just about to move. Following the successful implementation of this guaranteed order programme, local authorities were for the first time able to move from the drawing board to house completion stage quickly and able to eliminate the years of frustrating delays which they had previously been experiencing.

I mentioned earlier that I intended quoting for the Minister from Circular N 5/72. The Minister claimed that immediately on coming to office he cut the red tape and devolved responsibility for housing matters on to local authorities and, generally, brought in something new. This is a Department circular which I think should be dated 8th December, 1973. It was printed in 1972. The Heading is "Devolution of Responsibility". I quote:

When introducing the Estimates for his Department in the Dáil on 20th June, 1972 the Minister——

who was then myself——

referred to his decision to devolve to local housing authorities the power to plan and to accept tenders for schemes of up to six houses and for all rural cottages and demountable dwellings and he indicated that if that measure of devolution proved successful he would enlarge the extent of local discretion progressively in future years.

The Minister has reviewed the matter and has decided to extend the degree of devolution substantially. In the financial year commencing on 1st April, 1973 responsibility for the planning of and acceptance of tenders for all rural cottages, demountable dwellings and schemes of 24 houses or less will rest with the local authority subject only to an agreed cost ceiling per dwelling and to overall expenditure being kept within a capital allocation made for the year to the local authority. The arrangement will extend to schemes of up to 50 houses as and from 1st April, 1974.

The only contribution the present Minister made to this scheme was to change the date, 1st April, 1974, to a current date. But the great Coalition propaganda machine has been pumping out in several speeches——

And increased the number to 60.

You increased it to 60 and changed the date and brought it forward, but all the groundwork and the experiments had been carried out under the Fianna Fáil Administration and the success of the scheme depended on that work.

They did not even change it and they did not even know it.

Aladdin and his wonderful lamp.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

I think I have clearly established that the facility to increase local authority housing output substantially was due to the operation of the guaranteed order project and without it that it could not possibly have been achieved and that in the previous Administration's last two years of office we had seen the benefit of it and that it was about to get off the ground to a spectacular level. In fact, the Minister had been handed the whole thing on a plate.

A lot of problems.

In a speech the Minister made on 11th October, 1973, in opening a housing scheme, as issued by the Government Information Bureau, he said he had misgivings when this scheme under the guaranteed order project was originally proposed. He was referring to the scheme he was opening. He said:

My conviction then was and remains that these smaller local schemes are best handled entirely by local authorities themselves and are best carried out by the many competent, small, local builders. This conviction lead to the very substantial devolution by me to local authorities of responsibility in the planning of houses.

He was repeating his criticism of the guaranteed order project. In a statement issued by the Minister through the Government Information Bureau on 17th October, 1973, it was stated:

The Minister for Local Government has circulated to housing authorities a range of 55 outline house plans. The plans are based on metric modules and show suggested alternative internal designs of dwellings. He has told local authorities that his further approval to house plans will not be needed where they decide to use house plans which are based on these outlines.

I should like the Minister when replying to tell us how he can criticise the guaranteed order project in one case and in another issue from the Government Information Bureau information which in fact is encouraging the implementation of the second phase of that project which had been worked out in my time.

How is it encouraging it? Would the Deputy go into detail about that?

The whole wording of this indicates to me that the second phase of the guaranteed order project is what the Minister is using. I should like the Minister to state in what way what he is doing differs from what had been proposed.

The wish is father to the thought; of course it does. I shall tell you when replying.

In any case, I think I have shown that the local authorities were geared for a substantial increase in the output of houses. To show that a substantial increase in output was being achieved here are the figures: in 1970-71, 3,875 local authority houses were completed; in 1971-72, 5,106 were completed, an increase of 1,231 over the previous year. This was the first effect of the guaranteed order project. In 1972-73 the output was 5,784, another increase of 678 and the Minister has now set his target at 6,500, which is an increase of only 700 over the figure we achieved last year and is not a really outstanding or magnificent achievement. It is a continuation of the trend which had been established in local authority housing output under the previous Administration.

The Minister should also take note of the starts in local authority houses which had increased substantially. In 1970-71, the figure was 4,986; the number completed the following year was 5,106; in 1971-72, 5,687 local authority houses were started and in the following year 5,784 were completed. Last year, the figure was 7,202 starts.

One would expect that with that trend the number of completions this year should be nearer to 7,000 than to 6,500. The houses were started and authorised last year and so the Minister's many statements that the plans had not been made do not stand up to examination. I have informed the House that in all over 32,000 houses had been started last year. There is planning. Not alone is it planning but it is actually commencement of construction because in most cases the foundations had been poured and, in a number of cases the grants had been sanctioned.

There were no grants sanctioned. That is not true; they were not.

That is not correct. The planning permission had also been granted and——

Ah, yes.

——and obviously the sites were there or they could not have got this permission. It is very easy to toss it all aside and say there were no plans. In fact there were, and those figures proved that very conclusively because those starts could not have been authorised unless the sites were there and planning permission granted on them and in the case of private houses the grants were allocated, 24,394 in all.

The position regarding housing in Dublin is always of very great interest because it is the largest city and the fastest-growing—I do not know if it is relatively but by reference to overall numbers it is growing faster than any other city— and it is the major industrial area of the country. Obviously there is great demand and pressure for houses in Dublin. It has always been taken as a barometer of the Government's successful housing programme if the programme were a success in Dublin. I have never subscribed to that view. There are 26 counties with 115 local authorities throughout the country. In all these cities, towns and villages there are people with housing needs similar to those in Dublin. Because the demand in Dublin is bigger it gets more attention. We ensured that the housing needs of the whole community got the same attention, that there was an even pattern of allocation according to needs and that persons were housed as quickly as possible. The Dublin housing situation at the end of the last Fianna Fáil administration——

Not "era" because we must be further ahead before we can decide whether it is an era.

In reply to a parliamentary question as reported in Volume 265, columns 427-428 of the Official Report, the following information was given in relation to the number on the housing list on 31st March, 1973. I will not quote but will give the facts. The number on the housing list was given as 4,598. The Dublin Corporation housing programme on the same date was 17,563 dwellings to be built or sites to be developed, including 2,031 under construction, 4,904 at tender or various stages of planning and 10,628 sites available or being acquired. That gives the total of 17,563. The Minister has continuously claimed when answering questions that, if he does not achieve the figure he picked out of the air, it will be because the Fianna Fáil Government did not make the plans. How could he be expected to achieve this target when the plans were not made in advance? I want to show the Minister very conclusively and I think I have, that the plans were in fact made and that the activities in the building industry were at a very satisfactory level. There was an air of confidence created by Fianna Fáil over the past years which resulted in increased output annually. Dublin Corporation had managed to reduce the waiting time for applicants to a two year period and it was approaching a one year delay for the ordinary size family.

The officials of Dublin Corporation told me that by 1980 at the rate of progress of the Fianna Fáil Government they would still have more than 5,000 people on their waiting list.

That is not true. The corporation had roughly 4,500 on their housing list and they would all have been housed within 18 months.

The Deputy cannot pick figures out of the air and get away with it. Deputy Dowling could provide the figures.

What is the normal increase in the population of Dublin?

I do not know.

The Minister should know. I have no intention of educating him.

I have given facts. The output of local authority housing in Dublin has increased substantially. The Fianna Fáil Government were not concerned with the "numbers game"—picking a number and throwing it before the electorate. Gimmicks were never Fianna Fáil's forté. The Coalition seem to thrive on gimmicks. We relied on solid achievements. Our record in Government shows that we created economic stability. There was a steady rate of expansion during our term of office. We believed in progress on all fronts and always avoided overheating one section of the economy at the expense of another. That can lead to disaster in a very short time.

Fianna Fáil believe in pockets of unemployment.

Were I asked to put a figure on the possible housing output for this year I would have said that the local authority housing output should definitely reach between 6,500 and 7,000 houses and private housing would touch 20,000 or over.

But there was only enough money for 20,000 houses.

I gave no money because when the Minister came into office he decided——

When I took office on 30th March there was enough money for 20,000 houses. That is a fact.

There is no point repeating that. It is not fair for a Minister to come into the House and continuously repeat what he deems to be a provisional figure. There were no final figures. There was no final commitment to the extent of the capital which would have been allocated.

They were as final as you could get them.

We had not reached that stage but we were coming to it. The Minister should ask the officials of the Department of Local Government if they were asked by the Department of Finance to state what amount of money they could expend if money were unlimited. That request was made, and that was the situation when the election was announced. There were no final decisions. Quoting figures from that period is not proper.

The Deputy is caught out with his phoney figures.

These figures cannot be substantiated. We were asked if money were unlimited what amount we could expend.

The Deputy planned 20,000 houses for the whole country.

The figures the Minister used in making his allocation were based on the figures I was working on. With the number of houses begun or authorised last year, the trends in the housing industry and the rate of increase in output, I calculate that it should be possible to achieve an output of 26,650 houses this year. That would not be a fantastic achievement. The groundwork for this output had been laid. It is well within the capacity of the industry to achieve that figure. There were 32,797 starts last year, the bulk of which must be completed during this financial year. The truth is that the Minister had this handed to him on a plate. He had a thriving building industry. Sites had been acquired. Planning permission had been obtained, grants had been allocated by his Department for 24,000 private houses. The industry was in a very confident mood. It would be audacious on his part to say that he might not achieve even the 25,000 figure quoted in his 14-point plan.

If the Minister had not rocked the boat by controlling the interest rates paid by building societies, he could have been assured of achieving the miserable targets that were set. Unfortunately, the Minister was eager to wield his newly attained power. This was the Government of talents. He must show his talents too.

I came in in a general election. It did not need an arms——

Unfortunately, some are more talented than others. His first assertion of authority was this interference with the operation of the building societies. I shall quote his own words on that. At column 434, Volume 265, of the Official Report of 3rd May, 1973, he said in reply to a question by Deputy Lemass:

The Government are determined, however, to take all available measures to prevent unjustifiable increases in mortgage rates and recently authorised me to inform building societies that the special taxation arrangements which are operated administratively by the Revenue Commissioners in relation to them will henceforth be available only to societies which charge a rate of interest on house-purchase loans that does not exceed the rate which I may specify from time to time. The societies were informed on the 23rd March that, in the existing circumstances, the maximum rate specified for this purpose was 10 per cent.

That, I submit to the House, was the start of the rot.

Nonsense.

Of course, it was. That was in March. On May 23rd you had to announce a 1 per cent subsidy on interest rates—incidentally, something which we are discussing here by way of a Supplementary Estimate. The taxpayers are being asked to carry this, and I notice that you have come in here seeking £1 million——

(Interruptions.)

If the Deputy would address the Chair, he would avoid asking questions and inviting interruptions.

The Minister, in his Supplementary Estimate, is seeking £1 million to cover this interest subsidy for building societies. I shall have more to say about where he got that figure from. I have said it was the start of the rot. It was the first time for many years that the State had interfered in this area of building society activity, and it had an unsettling effect on the investing public, and in speaking of building societies, we are speaking in the main of small investors.

Does the Deputy want the building programme to collapse for want of funds?

Deputy Dockrell will have an opportunity to make his contribution.

(Interruptions.)

The Deputy is engaging in scare tactics.

Deputy Molloy should be allowed to speak without interruptions. Every other Deputy will get his chance.

That is what happened on May 23rd, the 1 per cent subsidy. On September 22nd the Minister increased the interest rate to 11¼ per cent.

No. The Minister did not increase the interest rate. He allowed the interest rate to be increased until further notice.

He was going to hold them, according to this statement here, at 10 per cent, but in order to do that he had to come in with a special subsidy which was a burden on the taxpayers. He comes back on 22nd September and the rate goes to 11¼ per cent. Worse than that, wielding the big stick, he introduced a ban on loans for secondhand houses which we were informed was to be in operation until 1st January, 1974.

But could be reviewed.

He now admits his mistake and comes in on this Estimate today and indicates that he must bring forward that 1st January date to 1st December.

Because the building societies are now getting more money to lend money for secondhand houses.

There was worse to come. He restricted loans to £7,500.

The Fianna Fáil proposal was £6,000, in case the Deputy has forgotten.

That is not true.

You are found out.

You are found out. I have the documents here; £6,000 was your limit.

(Interruptions.)

The building societies are restricted in the amount of loans they are allowed——

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

I was dealing with the building societies and the rot that set in after the Minister's announcement that the Government intended to control interest rates. The arrogant assertion that was made and which was contained in the Dáil Debates published on 3rd May soon turned sour with the succeeding statements indicating the necessity to introduce this subsidy to try to make up for their first statement, eventually having to concede that this was an area over which they had no control at all and that it would have been better if they had stayed out of it. They had done a lot of damage in frightening people away from building societies because of what they had been saying.

More money has come in.

Increasing the rate to 11¼ per cent, as you know, Minister, is a crippling burden.

Would the Deputy please address the Chair?

This is a crippling burden on many persons who had to take out mortgages with building societies in order to purchase a home for their families.

After the by-election the rate will be 15 per cent.

Would Deputy Dowling allow Deputy Molloy to speak?

It is all very well for the Minister to talk about people who have their houses bought for a number of years, who got their houses at a low price and at a low mortgage. The burden will not be very heavy on them, but that type of talk is of no help at all to the people who are buying houses at today's prices, bearing in mind all the factors that are concerned in the price of a house. A building society spokesman said that the average size loan issued by the societies was £5,000, so quite a substantial number of loans being taken up through the building societies are well in excess of £5,000. The Minister and those sitting behind him must know personally many young couples who have purchased a home with a mortgage and on whom a crippling burden rests as a result.

What would the Deputy do with them? He would put the rates up by another 1¼ per cent. That is all he would do.

We have been experiencing increased costs in every facet of life over the past few months with food, household goods, clothing and many other items escalating at an enormous rate. The income of these people have not been increasing to keep pace with those increased costs. Those who planned the repayment of a mortgage knowing it was going to cost them so much per month have now found that their advance planning on the repayments has been grossly distorted due to the substantial increase in the amount they now must repay monthly to the building societies.

The revised SDA limits bring in the small fellows you were speaking about.

Thousands of young couples are experiencing difficulties at this very moment. They are being pushed to the brink. It is not at all surprising that an association called ACRA have sought to represent these middle-income people who are turning to revolutionary tactics and radical ways of solving their financial problems. The revolution which is taking place among the middle-class today because of the burden of taxation, the increased costs and their inability to meet these costs will lead this country into difficulties. This will kick that Government over there out the door as soon as the people get an opportunity of facing them at a general election. Until that day comes, these young people will have to continue to find money some place. Many of them are going without food.

That is a lot of nonsense.

The Minister has lost touch.

I have been informed that a lady doctor gave the opinion that in a large housing area occupied by middle-class people there were persons suffering from malnutrition. They cannot afford to buy sufficient quantities of food for themselves and their children because of their expenses by way of mortgage repayments and price increases generally. That is happening in Ireland today.

The Taoiseach said that neck mutton had not gone up in price.

Deputy Molloy, please.

This rot lead to another event on 24th September when ACRA declared a mortgage strike. They were forced into what they thought was a way of easing the burden I have been speaking about. The Minister has been assuring us that the flow of funds into the building societies is satisfactory. We have the statement that £6 million for a scheme for loans for new houses was on the way. It got a big heading in the Evening Herald, which read “£6 million to ease housing crisis”. I want to ask a few questions about that £6 million.

The Deputy must ask question through the Chair.

Through the Chair, am I to take it from what the Minister has said about being satisfied with the flow of funds that the building societies' ability to increase the number of loans being paid by a further £6 million over and above their normal rate of lending was due to increased flow of funds to the building societies?

You can take anything you like out of it.

If that is so, the Minister is not being very forthcoming with us or with the community.

I have been listening to nonsense from you for the last couple of hours.

The Minister thinks everything he says is wonderful and everything anyone else says is nonsense.

A lot is untrue.

The loans paid by the building societies in the first quarter of 1973 amounted to £14.776 million. The net increase in the flow of new funds to the societies was £8.013 million. They paid out £14.7 million and got in £8 million. In the second quarter they paid out £10.745 million and got in £11.201 million. We find over the six month period the building societies paid out £25.5 million and they got in £19.2 million in shares and deposits.

Where did the Deputy get the figures? I am not prepared to take them from him.

From the quarterly booklet of the housing statistics for the quarter ended 30th September, which was not for publication before the 17th November, 1973.

Caught out again.

The Deputy is forgetting the loan repayments. He does not understand how this works.

The Chair has asked Deputies to address the Chair and to allow the Deputy in possession to speak.

I said £25.5 million was paid out by the building societies and they got in £19.2 million in deposits. The Minister "lost his rag".

I did not "lose my rag". I hate the fact that the Minister who was in office for three years does not understand the matter properly. There was another element in it from which the money came. If the Deputy does not know about it he did not learn much when in office. If he does know, he is being dishonest.

If we are to take it that the figures are similar for the second six months and if the building societies were to increase their lending by a further £6 million over and above their normal rate of lending, no matter how long I was in the Department of Local Government I would not understand how that could be done.

They are not.

Are the figures for the net increase correct? In his reply the Minister should clear away the mystery in relation to that second sum. He has stated that the money has come to the building societies through an increase in the investment made with them by their ordinary investors. I challenge him on that.

I want to come now to another aspect of the whole housing scene. This is not important in relation to achievements in the past, but it is of very great importance in relation to achievements in the future. The housing statistics of 30th September which we were presented with, show that the number of dwellings begun or authorised in the first six months of this year was 10,853. This is a reduction of 2,480 on the same period in the previous year. The number of private dwellings begun or authorised in the same period was 6,434, a reduction of 2,749 on the number for the same period last year.

The Minister must agree that these figures are alarming. It is disturbing that the half-year total of house starts this year is only one-third of the figure for the whole of last year. These, then, are the most important figures in this booklet. They spell disaster for next year's housing programme.

The Deputy is forgetting conveniently the new regulation about prices.

What is the Minister talking about? He gets half the message from his side aides, mixes it up and then trots it out wrongly.

The Deputy knows well what I mean.

Everybody knows that house price control did not come into operation until the end of the last financial year.

The 2nd February.

It did not apply during the first six months. The Minister should be careful.

That is not true.

This man, a Cheann Comhairle, is endeavouring to interfere with serious relevant facts that I am presenting to the House. The figures I have given illustrate the trend in so far as next year's completions are concerned; and let us remember that next year will be the first year that the Coalition's housing programme has to stand on its own feet. It shot off into this year on the back of the previous Fianna Fáil administration's work and planning in relation to housing. Already we see the trends of a substantial reduction in the number of housing starts for the first six months of this year.

Under the previous administration only 20,000 houses were provided for this year.

The figures are very bleak and indicate disaster for next year although that situation has been almost reached at present.

There are employed in the building trade 2,000 more people than when the Deputy was in office.

How many speeches are we to have from the Minister?

In relation to building societies the Minister allowed an increase in the lending rates to 10 per cent and this was followed by another increase which brought the figure to 11¼ per cent. This places an additional burden on a section of the community least able to carry that burden. The increase to 10 per cent meant a repayment of £45.95 per month on an average loan of £5,000 for a 25-year period, while the increase to 11¼ per cent brought the figure to £50.40 per month, or an overall increase of 9.68 per cent in the monthly repayments. That was yet another increase that we have had to suffer since the coming to power of the Coalition Government. I suggest, on behalf of all the mortgage holders of this country——

Is the Deputy representing them now?

I am here as spokesman for Local Government on behalf of my party. I am not assuming to speak for all mortgage holders but I happen to be one of them and one who has suffered a big jump in repayments without any additional benefits becoming available to me. However, I speak of all mortgage holders. At present the building societies pay income tax on the interest earned by their investors. The current rate of 8 per cent free of tax on investments being offered by the societies costs an extra 2½ per cent. That represents the income tax payable by the societies. I suggest that, if this tax were eliminated, the societies could retain their 8 per cent tax-free rate to investors but could reduce the mortgage to 10 per cent or even 9¾ per cent.

A moment ago the Deputy was whinging about the 1 per cent that the taxpayer has to pay because we put on a subsidy, but he now advocates a 2 per cent subsidy in respect of house purchase. He cannot have it both ways.

I am whinging for the mortgage holders, especially those young people who have bought new houses at high prices which involve a big mortgage. These people are either not able to meet their repayments, or else, are suffering in some other way because of their efforts to meet them. It should be emphasised that the building societies would not be relieved of income tax because their surplus, which must be set aside in order to keep intact their reserve ration, would always remain liable to tax. The suggestion I have made to the Minister of relieving home loan savings of the 2½ per cent taxation element would render unnecessary the Government's subsidy and would be about 1 per cent cheaper than subsidising a massive increase in local authority loans.

In view of the present situation, of the burden on mortgage holders and of the stated commitment of the Coalition in regard to housing, as well as of the dire circumstances in which so many people find themselves, the removal of income tax on the interest earned by investors would be a reasonable step and would solve many of the difficulties involved. I ask the Minister to request his Government to consider that suggestion very seriously, because it is a way out.

I have crossed swords with the Minister here on a number of occasions but I do not object to him winning a point so long as he has his facts right. However, it is very annoying to seek information from the Minister only to be rebuked with some cant or fast remark. An experience I had here some time ago will indicate the manner in which the Minister is treating some of our problems. One day at Question Time I asked the Minister to state the local authorities that were issuing loans to applicants for the purchase of secondhand houses. I got from the Minister a list of a number of local authorities, but that list did not include the Galway Corporation.

I put down the question because I was interested in a certain happening at Galway Corporation. I asked the Minister, on 31st October, as can be seen in the Official Report, column 924, the local authority areas in which local authority loans are advanced for the purchase of secondhand houses. In a supplementary I asked the Minister if he was aware that applicants who had gone to the local authorities seeking loans to enable them to purchase secondhand houses had been refused in Galway City. The Minister said that he was not so aware. He suggested I take the matter up with Galway Corporation. I pointed out to the Minister that a number of applicants were suffering very severe hardship because of the non-availability of loans for the purchase of secondhand houses. The Minister said that if I got incorrect information from my own corporation I should take the matter up with them.

In the newspapers the following day the impression which the Minister gave everybody present in the House at that time was quoted, and that was that Galway Corporation were giving loans for secondhand houses. I rang the corporation and asked if the Department of Local Government had been inquiring as to the availability of loans for secondhand houses. Officials there said the Department had inquired and were informed that the corporation did not issue loans for secondhand houses. I pointed out to the official concerned that the Minister had informed me in the House that that was not the position.

That is very unsatisfactory. One would have expected some form of correction later in the House, but I do not think it was made. This left people in a very awkward position, particularly those who were anxious to buy secondhand houses. While this ban on the giving of loans by the building societies for the purchase of secondhand houses was in operation it was very awkward for many people. I am pleased, and happy, that the Minister has decided to lift that ban in advance of the date he had originally set. Many people could not transfer from their own home to another house while this ban was in existence. I had a sad case of a person who was seriously affected by this, but I will not delay the House with the details of it now that the Minister has lifted that ridiculous ban.

The information I have is that Galway Corporation said they were giving loans for secondhand houses and, if they were not, they should have been.

The information the Minister received stated that they were not giving loans for secondhand houses?

That is the information I received.

Why did the Minister not state that in the reply to my supplementary question? The Minister should know he did not include Galway Corporation in the original reply.

Please avoid entering into argument across the floor.

The Minister is again a bit confused.

I am only trying to help the Deputy.

He is not. I should like the Minister, in his reply, to tell the House where the £6 million has gone because it is not shown in the Book. A number of new schemes were initiated over the past three years, and one would not feel too bad about the whole thing if the Minister had continued on with the work which was being done in the Department. It was very disappointing to find that all the work that was done on the swimming pool programme was brought to a complete halt. The hatchet has dropped on this one also.

That is a cod. I provided the money for pools that the Deputy had sanctioned. The Deputy provided no money for at least eight such pools.

Not one pool has been approved since the Minister took up office.

I put up the money instead.

Now we have pools which are not completed but, naturally, the Minister cannot renege on the commitment given by the previous administration. They are firm commitments entered into in a proper manner.

In Maynooth on 13th March, the day before the Deputy left office, the Deputy did not know the first thing about it.

We achieved records in housing output and in the sanitary services programme. We also achieved records in the acquisition of land for building and other purposes. Generally, we were an enlightened reform administration. One of the areas to which we made a major contribution —it is not a major area but it is a very important one and one which goes hand in hand with housing—is the provision of amenities. The provision of amenities is important because it is accepted that a State or Government are not meeting their obligations to a community merely by providing a roof over the heads of the housing applicants.

The Government's responsibility does not end there. The Government must ensure that the quality of life enjoyed by the persons residing in those newly constructed houses is the finest and is satisfactory. The Government must also ensure that these people live in a good environment. In order to make a major contribution to improving the environment, quality of life and the recreational amenities available to residents in housing schemes in big towns and cities, I introduced a new amenity grant scheme. I also expanded the building of swimming pools.

Swimming pools, I believe, are a very necessary amenity in any area where there is a substantial population. Swimming is a very healthy exercise and the persons who are taught how to swim acquire a very useful art which ensures that they are able to handle themselves in the water and can be the cause of saving lives. It is also a great recreational outlet for young and old. During the Fianna Fáil administration, and mostly in recent years, the following swimming pools were approved, or were at various stages of construction: Athy, Naas, Kilkenny, Portlaoise, Portarlington, Drogheda, Navan, Birr, Clara, Edenderry, Mullingar, Athlone, Bunclody, Ferrybank, New Ross, Townsend Street in Dublin city, Crumlin, Coolock, Ballyfermot, Ballymun, Finglas, St. Mary's in Cabra, St. Vincent's on the Navan Road, Glenalbyn, Ballinteer, Clondalkin, Avoca, Kingstown School, Monkstown, Ennis, Shannon, two in Cork city, North Monastery, Carrickavar, Cobh, Fermoy, Mallow, Tralee, Askeaton, Limerick, Nenagh, Thurles, Tipperary, Clonmel, Salthill, Holy Family School at Renmore in Galway, Ballinasloe, Tuam, Carrick-on-Shannon, Ballina, Ballyhaunis, Castlebar, Claremorris, Roscommon, Ballyshannon, Bundoran, Letterkenny and Monaghan town.

What about Ballinasloe?

All of those were approved before 14th March. Since the Minister took office there have not been any new approvals other than a small one in Charlestown in which I was involved myself. Many of them are already open and are being enjoyed. There is a new trend under the Coalition Government: not the building of swimming pools, but the closing of swimming pools.

If I were Minister, not one swimming pool would be allowed to close down.

They are not closed yet.

This is a great shame on the Government.

The Deputy is from Galway and he knows it. If he says a swimming pool has been closed down he is telling an untruth because he wants to do harm. This pool is not closed down.

I want to put on record what the paper says.

Never mind what the paper says.

It is stated in the paper: "£56,000 swimming pool to close." A very subtle difference.

Sure. We are all going to die but we did not die yet.

It says that Ballinasloe's 18 months old swimming pool has been forced to close. That is a disgrace. It reflects poorly on the Minister's interest in youth, in recreational facilities and in physical recreation activities. He would want to think again if he is to allow that kind of thing to happen.

We are dealing with an Estimate which includes a Supplementary Estimate and in the Supplementary Estimate the Minister is seeking an additional £3.039 million. The document explains that £1 million of that is to meet interest subsidy for building societies. I know the Minister gave a partial explanation in his statement but I should like to quote something that the Minister for Finance said on 12th October, 1973. He was referring to the subsidy which the Government had introduced to subsidise mortgages and he said that "if the Government had not given this unique assistance to building societies and their borrowers, assistance which is costing the Exchequer nearly £2 million this year...". If it is costing nearly £2 million this year and the Minister says he is looking for £1 million—and in his speech he said the £1 million would meet only what would be required up to the end of the financial year——

That is not what I said at all. The Deputy should read the speech again.

Will the Minister explain to me——

I will not. Read the speech and you will know.

I will not read the speech again. I sat here for two and a half hours listening to it.

Do not talk about things you know nothing about.

I would like the Minister to explain——

If the Deputy's remarks were addressed through the Chair we could avoid a lot of interruptions.

I should like the Minister to explain why there is a contradiction between the amount the Minister for Finance said this would cost the State this year and the amount the Minister is seeking, because there is a difference of £1 million.

I should like to interject to advise the Deputy that Ministers usually reply to these queries when concluding the debate.

What about McInerney in Renmore?

The local authority have a compulsory purchase order for 14 or 15 acres of open space for recreational purposes in the Renmore area. I was involved in this and I confirmed the purchase order. This Government have said on a number of occasions that they were concerned about the provision of amenities and the quality of the environment. I submit that there are very few ways of providing amenities other than with hard cash. When it came to distributing the amount to be invested by this Government in amenities, there was a substantial reduction between the amount provided last year and the amount they provided this year.

The Deputy mortgaged £165,000 last year and gave a guarantee to Deputy George Colley in writing that it would not be used this year.

It is the greatest codswallop to hear any Minister say that the decisions he is making, and his Government are making, in relation to the provision of finance are determined by a letter which a former Minister sent to a colleague. That is the greatest cod of all times.

Deputy Colley was stupid enough to agree to it and he had to honour what the Deputy said.

The Minister is very naive. He should try to operate a little more independently than he has been operating up to now. He should act on his own. The types of amenity schemes which would qualify for the new grant, introduced in the three year period of which I spoke, are set out in a Department handout: "Any project may be considered provided that it does not form part of a housing estate being constructed by a local authority or private persons and is designed to improve community facilities for recreation and leisure pursuits for the protection or improvement of natural or man-made amenities or the enhancement of the appearance of the area concerned. Works that will qualify include parks and open spaces, playgrounds, playingfields, pitch and putt courses, tennis and basketball courts, facilities for or in connection with boating, fishing, outdoor swimming, access to lakes, rivers, beaches and other areas of recreational or amenity value, works for the conservation or protection of natural or manmade amenities or sites or areas of special scientific interest. Opening up of views or prospects, scenic walks, mountain paths, nature trails, planting of trees and shrubs, local museums, car parks in areas of scenic attraction of special tourist interest or recreational utility, or car parks which form part of or are incidental to a general scheme of amenity works. Finally community or recreation centres in new or existing buildings."

All those very worthwhile schemes would qualify for grants under the amenity grants scheme which was new and for which a substantial amount had been provided. The important thing was that an increasing amount had been provided each year under the Fianna Fáil Government. The first year in which this scheme operated a total of £1.4 million worth of applications was received from the local authorities through whom the applications were to be directed. In 1973-74, £1.7 million worth of applications were received, making a total of £3 million. It was intended to increase the amount this year over and above the £465,000 provided last year. The Minister cut that amount—the hatchet dropped again— by £225,000 and allocated only £240,000.

Deputy Molloy got £300,000 and he got £165,000 on condition in December of last year.

That is the position as shown in the Book of Estimates. This £240,000 had to be distributed to the various local authorities. The poor West of Ireland suffered again at the hands of the Coalition Government. It lost £91,483 for amenity schemes due to the change of Government. The allocation to the counties west of the Shannon in 1972-73 was £151,283. That sum which, in itself, was largely inadequate was cut back to £59,800, a drop of £91,483. To hell with the West has been the attitude since this Government took office.

I did not put it all into Meath as the Deputy did with Galway.

We have been robbed, left, right and centre. We have been robbed of money for schemes in the West and we are being robbed of seats in the Dáil due to the gerrymander Bill introduced by the Minister.

That would be relevant to another debate.

It is relevant to this Estimate. We are being robbed, right left and centre. This Coalition spell disaster and doom for those of us living in the West. The next time they will get a fairly rough ride from the electorate.

The Deputy will get it from Shantalla and Mervue.

The question is: will the Deputy be here? He will have a special interest in the following figures because he is a Coalition Deputy and is a member of Galway Corporation who have quite a number of applications for amenity grants with the Department of Local Government. The cry from Deputy Coogan before was that the Government had no money, would not sanction applications and, consequently, were to blame.

Your Government did not sanction anything.

That record has been played for the last 15 years. In 1972-73 the corporation got so much money they were not able to spend it. In that year they got £37,000 but they had a number of schemes to complete in Galway. However, the Minister for Local Government cut that figure to a miserable £4,000—for the fourth largest town in the country. Nowadays it is not possible to construct a pond in a park for that money.

The Deputy would not get a swimming pool in Galway for that amount.

I am not a member of Galway Corporation but Deputy Coogan is on the corporation. Yet he sits up there and supports——

What about the Deputy's friend, McInerney, who is trying to get land——

The Deputy supports this measure which deprives Galway Corporation——

The Chair would prefer that Members do not cast aspersions on persons outside this House who cannot defend themselves here. Personalities should not be brought into this debate.

The Deputy should leave my wife out of it and I will leave his wife out of it. That should be enough for the Deputy.

I am talking about McInerneys.

Order.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

The way in which the Coalition have cut back on expenditure in relation to amenity schemes displays a certain philosophy and shows a lack of interest in youth and in the creation of a better environment. The Government have taken a retrograde step in this matter. I had hoped to see this figure reach the £1 million mark in a short time because this scheme is backed up by a similar expenditure by the local authorities, if we had provided £500,000 the local authorities would spend a similar amount, thus constituting an investment of £1 million in recreational facilities. However, the Coalition have decided this is not an important area; although they paid considerable lip service to the idea, they have not provided the money.

Galway Corporation have suffered a decrease of £33,000 in their allocation; from the £37,000 previously allowed they have now got £4,000. It might be interesting to consider what the Government did to Monaghan. Under Fianna Fáil that county received £6,500 which was cut back to £4,000 by the Coalition. However, the knife really sank in deepest in the western counties; Leitrim was reduced from £14,000 to £6,000; Donegal from £21,000 to £8,000; Sligo from £6,000 to £4,000; Roscommon from £10,000 to £6,000; Mayo from £20,000 to £8,000 and Clare from £17,000 to £8,000. That was a bad day for the western counties and it shows the thinking of this Government on these matters. I would appeal to the Minister to bring another Estimate before the House when he has an opportunity in order to restore and perhaps increase the amounts I have mentioned. The schemes are worthwhile——

I will not have to worry about the £155,000 the Deputy gave away.

The Minister has provided £250,000 to meet roughly £3 million worth of applications and this is a disgrace. The Minister also referred to the working party on the fire services and mentioned some of the recommendations they made. I would ask him in his reply to refer to that part of the recommendation where they stated they believed the recommendations in the report that a national fire advisory body should be established and that the chief fire officer should report to the county manager and be fully responsible for the service under his control are matters of considerable importance and require immediate attention. Because of the urgency and importance of the matters they stated they intend to submit a further report. However, the Minister did not refer to that aspect of the report in his statement.

The Minister made an announcement today but I am handicapped in that I have available only the newspaper cuttings——

Have the backroom boys not done their stuff?

I have not been supplied with any statement. In The Irish Press of today's date under the heading: “New move on planning laws”, it stated that the Minister urged that applications for permission should be approached in a far less restrictive way and unless there are very serious objections they should be granted. He said that while many development plans contained provisions against ribbon building, such clauses should not prevent a liberal approach to individual cases, particularly outside the area immediately adjacent to large cities and towns and off the principal routes radiating from them.

The report in the Irish Independent states that Mr. Tully has indicated that he wants to discuss the implementation of his policy with the various officials and “it is his intention that he and the Parliamentary Secretary will take their decision on planning appeals in the light of Mr. Tully's policy”.

The Minister feels that as a general rule it is inappropriate on planning control to go into septic tank control, in particular in relation to single houses on substantial sites.

During my term as Minister for Local Government I issued a circular to local authorities urging them to be less restrictive in their approach to planning matters and gave it as my considered opinion that many of the appeals reaching me should have been settled locally. If the Minister's statement today is urging local authorities in the same way I have nothing for which to criticise him, but the newspaper article gives the impression that the Minister is lifting the restrictions on the construction of houses alongside national primary and national secondary roads and that he is urging that it is inappropriate on planning control to go into septic tank control. If he is urging that the location of septic tanks be removed from planning control, then I have very serious disagreement with him.

It would be inappropriate for me to discuss with Deputy Molloy across the floor of the House what I propose to do, but I will have a chat afterwards if he would like to discuss this with me when we are having our tea.

This is very dangerous ground until the Bill is introduced and passed setting up a commission to decide planning appeals. We have at the moment to live with the situation in which a political person is making the decisions. I and my then Parliamentary Secretary were in this position. I have had a great deal of experience of the pressures put on a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary in making important planning decisions.

There will be no pressure put on me because I will not discuss appeals with anybody. Nobody should.

The restricting of housing along national primary and national secondary roads was a decision made by me in the light of all the available facts. Those facts indicated that there was a direct relationship between the number of new openings on national primary and national secondary roads and road accidents and road deaths and that one was merely dissipating the investment in roads by allowing houses to creep out along arterial roads. It was a negative policy to improve the roads to ensure the safe passage of those using them and then destroy the safety factor by granting permission for housing along those roads. Two years ago I made a very firm decision that permission would not be granted in appeals that came before me and local authorities were instructed to implement this policy at local level for very good reasons. The pressures I suffered in an effort to hold on to that important policy were quite extreme. There is no need to go into details, but the Minister will have it confirmed that that policy was upheld to the end by me and my Parliamentary Secretary.

That was not the evidence I found. I do not want to get into an argument about it, but that was not the evidence I found.

I stake my whole reputation on that statement. I know what I suffered in resisting the pressures. The pressures came from different levels in different ways and in different forms. I experienced all of them and my greatest pride, when leaving the Department, was that I had upheld that policy in relation to national primary and national secondary roads. If the Minister is proposing now to remove that restriction I would advise him to hasten slowly. He has certainly not been advised to do this by any of the qualified planners of the Department and he certainly has not got that kind of advice from the experts in An Foras Forbartha. There are no scientific or reasonable grounds on which that restriction could be lifted and the only consideration on which the Minister could make a decision of that nature is the consideration that influenced him in drawing up the constituencies gerrymander Bill, political expediency. If the standards of public life are now going to be dragged down into the mud in that way, then we have an obligation——

Deputy Molloy has a hard neck to talk about political neck in view of what he left in the Department after him.

——to expose them. The Minister, in seeking short-term gain and Coalition short-term popularity, is leading to the long-term destruction of our heritage and to a loss of life by decreasing the safety factor on our roads. If he is serious in the other extraordinary proposal that the location of septic tanks be removed from planning control, then the Minister has gone clean crazy. I believe the people will not stand for a lowering of standards in this way for political advantage, for the purchase of popularity.

We could not lower political standards any lower after Fianna Fáil.

When the standards were set by Fianna Fáil they were set at a high level. Planning principles were adhered to and applied. Are we now to see these lowered because the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary are not able to resist the pressures his friends are putting on him to get permission to build houses along national primary and national secondary roads? Or is this the last desperate panic measure to try to increase the number of houses and reach the target of 25,000, the magical figure which is anything but magical? Does he feel he must take any desperate measure to achieve that miserable target? We will watch developments.

Like the Skibbereen Eagle.

If we see that kind of move being made we will expose it from every wall and house-top and everywhere we can so that the people will know what is going on. A good deal of time was devoted by the Fianna Fáil Government to the settlement of the itinerant community. There were difficulties. The Minister referred to them. This is a sensitive area. It is one in which one must use great tact. It is also one in which one must be influenced by one's own Christian outlook. I should like to place on record the success of the Fianna Fáil Administration over the past few years in regard to our itinerant resettlement programme. Progress was made in various counties. Carlow County Council provided accommodation units for three families and housed two families in the last two years; an extension was being provided to the units to make them three-roomed. Carlow Urban District Council has provided three similar units on a site adjacent to the county council camp site.

In 1972 there were 15 families camped on authorised locations. Clare provided camping sites with caravan accommodation at four towns a few years ago and three-roomed accommodation units are now being provided for four families. In addition six units have been provided at Ennis and one at Ballygriffin.

In Cork they provided houses or mobile homes for 21 families and 17 of those were provided in the last three years. Cork City Council have housed 28 families under the settlement programme and 13 of those were done in the two years ended December last. A camping site for six families was provided at Blackrock. Cork Corporation has plans for the development of sites at Model Farm Road and Ballyphehane to accommodate 12 families in three-roomed chalets.

Dublin County Council provided a camping site for four families at Balbriggan. The council contributes towards the cost of the sites provided by the corporation at Ballyfermot and Finglas and three houses for itinerant families were provided in the two years up to the end of December. Accommodation units for four families at Clondalkin were completed around the end of last year and occupied and there are similar plans for sites at Ballyboughal. There are plans for two further family sites at Tallaght and Swords. In Dublin city the corporation have provided sites for one-roomed chalets for each family at Labré Park, there are 39 families accommodated there, and at Avila Park, Finglas, there are 20 families and a temporary site for 23 families at Rathfarnham. They housed a further six families in the two-year period ending December 1973. Galway County Council provided sites with living accommodation for eight families at Loughrea and at Deoch Uisce and Ballinasloe each for four families. The corporation provided temporary sites at a number of locations for 12 families and a site with accommodation units for four families at Tuam Road, Galway; they plan to provide accommodation for nine further families. In recent months a large number have been housed in new local authority dwellings.

I thought they had a big site at Rahoon at one time.

You are wrong.

That is the trend. Looking back on the years of Fianna Fáil Administration we made good progress on the resettlement of itinerants and their general rehabilitation, a subject on which the Minister has been very silent since he came to office. I would urge on him to pay some attention to it and to encourage those who are working in that field. He should actively promote the resettlement programme. It needs all the support it can get, especially from the top. This is probably one of the most difficult forms of work anyone could undertake. There are many dedicated people involved in this work. They deserve credit and they deserve the active support of the Minister for Local Government.

The Deputy objected to the housing of an itinerant in Galway.

As usual the Deputy does not know what he is talking about.

I am grateful to the House for bearing with me. I am sorry I took a bit longer than I intended. The activities of the Department cover a very wide field and a number of complex areas. The Department's influence is very real and the Minister's task is certainly not an easy one. I hope the targets he sets himself will not just be achieved but exceeded, because I am sure it is possible to exceed them. I trust that when the Minister takes his leave of the Custom House he will leave things in as good a shape as he found them on the day he walked in there after Fianna Fáil went out of office.

It is difficult for one who listened to the former Minister for Local Government to know whether to take him seriously or to treat his speech as partial comedy. He reminded me of the man who had wooden legs. His wooden legs went on fire and he was burned to the ground. When he claimed insurance he was told he had not got a leg to stand on. The former Minister for Local Government has not got a leg to stand on.

According to the newspapers Fianna Fáil have engaged the services of professors, economists and miscellaneous types of intelligentsia for the purpose of bringing them up to date with new and progressive policies. I thought that the first occasion on which we would hear of those new progressive policies would have been on the Estimate for Local Government. The Fianna Fáil spokesman seems to me to be completely bankrupt of any policy or any ideas and seems to display no progressiveness whatever. However, he probably realises that it will be into the year 2000, if ever, before we hear of a Fianna Fáil Government again. Those in Opposition at present are making a feeble attempt at the presentation of a programme because of the lack of Civil Service briefing. Where a Civil Service briefing is not available it is extremely difficult to expound on policy. That is why I pay tribute to the Members of the present Government and the manner in which they provided Opposition with such courage and distinction over a long period of years.

It amused me to hear Deputy Molloy tonight declare himself the representative of the mortgage holders of this country. He did not blink an eye and when questioned he appeared to confirm that he was speaking on behalf of the mortgage holders. Is it not a great pity that he did not present himself as the spokesman of NATO during the period when he was Minister for Local Government or offer a word of sympathy on the depressed circumstances of all who had to engage in organised activities to bring the genuineness of their grievances to the attention of the authorities?

Deputy Molloy said that all the present Minister had done was to "drop the hatchet". Occasionally Deputy Molloy changed that phrase to "drop the hammer". He accused the Minister of dropping the hatchet on various proposals and on some imaginary schemes which the Deputy seems to think existed when he was in office but which nobody else knows anything about. Surely it is evident that during the last days of Fianna Fáil in Government the one Department which had its very existence threatened was the Department of Local Government. Dublin Corporation were abolished by Fianna Fáil; Bray Urban District Council were dissolved. We had chaos throughout the country with rent strikes, withholding of rents and serious and genuine objections by council and corporation tenants, but despite the realities of their grievances the then Minister turned to them a deaf ear and a blind eye.

Worse was to come. The very structure of local Government was to be razed by Fianna Fáil. They were to undertake its complete dismantling. Every member of the House knows that every urban district council and town commission was under sentence and it was the aim and intention of Fianna Fáil to abolish as many local authorities as they possibly could. Having successfully abolished Dublin Corporation they felt that this was a worthwhile exercise and that silencing public representatives and taking away the right of the local councillor to speak for his people, substituting a paid official to administer affairs and completely take over the functions of elected representatives would suit Fianna Fáil better. It would cause them less inconvenience and embarrassment. They could get away with smaller schemes; the demand for progress would be gone and the drive one expects from a truly democratic form of local government would not exist. No local government official, commissioner or manager appointed by the Minister for Local Government could rule as efficiently or as effectively as the local representative elected by the people.

There were numerous plans in the Custom House and one of these was taken down, the dust blown off it, and the cobwebs wiped away and it was ready for implementation by the then Minister, Deputy Molloy. If Fianna Fáil had won the last General Election he would rush legislation through this House which would mean the end of local government as we knew it and as we know it.

Can the Deputy prove that?

At the meeting of the municipal authorities of Ireland in 1972 every representative assembled expecting that at that annual conference a ray of hope or reprieve would emerge but there was neither one nor the other. Instead, there was the donning of the black cap and the sentence of death for local authorities under Fianna Fáil and particularly under the leadership and on the recommendation of Deputy Molloy who has now spoken so loudly in defence of local government.

Is it not also true that only because the change of Government on 14th March last there is now beginning a revival of interest in local government? Those who have been associated with town commissions, urban or county councils were well aware that for the past five years the threat of dissolution has been hanging over them. There were gloom and depression, lack of interest, drive and initiative, lack of leadership from the Custom House, lack of encouragement from the Minister. Local authorities, particularly urban authorities, felt they were in their last term and they would have been in their last term had it not been for the change of Government.

Now, we hear Deputy Molloy accusing the present Minister of dropping the hatchet. The present Minister has dropped the hatchet on the dictatorial attitude of his predecessor. He saved the local authorities from complete dissolution. He saved urban council and town commissions. If that is dropping the hatchet, congratulations. May he be there for many long years. He also dropped the hatchet on high rates. I have been associated with the local authority in my constituency for over 30 years. This year was the first time in which there was a practical expression and support from a sympathetic Minister for Local Government towards rates relief. It was not sufficient for him to say that he shared the regrets of those who had to pay high rates, but he came to the aid of ratepayers in a practical and financial way. Because of this he is accused by the Fianna Fáil party of dropping the hatchet. He successfully dropped it on the ever-increasing volume of rates which was becoming an intolerable burden on every ratepayer, both urban and rural. There was no prospect of any measure of relief, not even the prospect of the rate remaining stationary for one financial year.

Deputy Molloy went to great lengths expounding figures, in round figures, percentages and fractions, which were not understood by the majority of our people. From cross questioning by the Minister for Local Government, it was extremely doubtful whether he understood his own figures. There is one thing of which I am certain and that is that the rates had been reaching a peak. The majority of ratepayers, particularly those in the agricultural community, had discovered that unless there was some halt to the increase in rates their existence would become intolerable. A serious effort was made by the Minister when he came to the assistance of every county council in Ireland.

I should like to ask a question. May we have the day and date when Fianna Fáil, in their long term of office, made a similar gesture towards the ratepayers? With 32 years' experience in this House I can say that I have never seen it. This is the first time a Minister has taken practical steps to bring relief and assistance to ratepayers.

The Government relieved the rates of a substantial portion of the health charges last spring. This has reflected on the occupier of every rated property in the country. Deputy Molloy tried to make a good case out of the worst possible material. He made no reference to rates relief. There was no expression of thanks from Fianna Fáil. One would not expect a unanimous vote of congratulations but one would expect a humble expression of thanks and appreciation at such a generous gesture as to relieve ratepayers of a substantial portion of the health charges. In three years all health charges will be off the rates. One would imagine that a party which had tried to convey the impression that they were interested in the problems of the ratepayers would be pleased with this gesture. Two or three nights before the last general election the present leader of Fianna Fáil decided, before or after a nightmare, that he would abolish the rates in the unlikely event of their returning to office.

The proclamation on rates by the then Taoiseach was viewed with suspicion by the farmers. Is that why Fianna Fáil will not mention rates in this debate? Everybody knew there was no sincerity in that announcement. Is that why Fianna Fáil will not, under any circumstances, comment on the reduction in rates brought about by the removal of health charges?

As a result of the change of Government very substantial relief has been given to the ratepayers which has never been and could never be given by Fianna Fáil. Sitting here since 4 o'clock this afternoon I thought that, with the infusion of economists and other experts to advise the Fianna Fáil Front Bench, of which I read in the papers recently, there would have been disclosure tonight from Deputy Molloy, going even further than Deputy Lynch at the general election in announcing the decision to abolish rates in the event of the return of Fianna Fáil to power. I expected to hear whether, in the event of Fianna Fáil being returned at the next general election, they still stood over Deputy Lynch's pronouncement on the abolition of rates, on property, land and buildings for all time.

We would also have been interested to hear from the spokesman on Local Government what was the alternative means of raising revenue to replace the rates Fianna Fáil would abolish. If I am asked by any of my constituents, who are reasonably critical at times and who in general can pose rather difficult questions for answer, whether Fianna Fáil will abolish rates and what they expect to replace the rates with, I shall have to tell my critical constituents that, having listened to Deputy Molloy for three and a half hours, I did not hear him mention the word "rates", that not alone did he not comment on Deputy Jack Lynch's policy on the abolition of rates for all time but that he did not even comment on the fact that Deputy Tully, as Minister for Local Government, had brought substantial rate relief; that for the record or even as a matter of courtesy there was not even one short complimentary observation on the achievement of the Minister for Local Government.

The National Coalition Government know where they stand in relation to rates. They did not have to make a panic pronouncement on rates, with a tolling of midnight bells three or four nights before the general election. The electorate were told well in advance. Every ratepayer in Ireland has seen the wisdom and the foresight of their decision to change the Government, which brought about an unprecedented and very pleasant picture for the ratepaying community in Ireland.

I am disappointed that the Opposition have no policy in relation to rates, but I am even more disappointed that they do not appear to have any policy in relation to local government. All the spokesman did was to quote statistics over the past four or five years and to be critical of the past five or six months. There were no positive proposals or practical suggestions in relation to the future of local government. There was nothing that the Minister for Local Government has done with which he could find serious fault.

Every county council in Ireland has had the benefit of the past eight months of government by the National Coalition. Instead of an increase of about 60p or 70p in the pound in the rates, there has been a reduction in many counties. That is why Fianna Fáil will be silent in regard to rates.

Some Member of the Fianna Fáil Party will probably take up the cudgels in regard to the small dwelling loans and supplementary grants. The Government have revised this scheme. The loans have been raised to £4,500. The income limit has been raised from £1,800 to £2,350. The income limit for supplementary grants has been raised to £1,950 per year with £100 extra for each child to a maximum of £2,350. Can anyone deny that this is progress? It is a change from the policy of Fianna Fáil and shows the difference between their policy and that of the National Coalition. There is nothing so important as the facilities available for loans for house purchase.

I am not dealing now with the local authorities' responsibility in regard to building. I am speaking about young married couples who require a home of their own and who have a site available. They may be anxious to have a new house erected but may find it difficult to obtain the necessary funds. They may have saved some money but require some additional money. In many instances, the banks are not prepared to finance such people. When Deputy Molloy was Minister for Local Government it was more difficult to obtain small dwelling loans than it is today. Numerous applicants were refused supplementary housing grants because of their incomes. These limits have been altered by the present Government. Many county councils did not expend all the moneys made available from the Local Loans Fund for housing purposes.

The Minister for Local Government may announce at the conclusion of this debate the amount of money that was available to every local authority in Ireland for the provision of loans under the Small Dwellings Act. The Minister may give details of the amount of money paid out and show that moneys were available which, under the Fianna Fáil Government, did not get into the pockets of those who needed them. Fianna Fáil provided money to the councils, but there were limitations and restrictions on the handing out of that money to applicants. These restrictions prevented the money going to the people who wanted new homes. There is a difference between the policy of Fianna Fáil and the policy of the National Coalition Government. Money will not be provided with barriers to prevent it reaching the pockets of the people who need it. Money will be made available for small dwelling loans to allow a greater number of people to be relieved of the anxieties which hang over them. These people may not want to be a burden on the local authorities. They want to be independent. They wanted the local authority moneys but could not get them because we live in an inflationary period which meant that their incomes were raised. If they were in receipt of certain incomes, no matter what their family responsibilities were, they did not qualify for grants.

What were the first steps taken by this Government? They ensured that the moneys available reached the people who were anxious to provide themselves with houses. Statistics are no good to people who need houses. They do not want to see tabular statements. They want to see bricks, mortar and concrete blocks. They want to see plumbers, bricklayers and stonemasons at work on their houses. Many borrowers from local authorities have been relieved of the anxiety which hung over them. The change of Government has brought a ray of hope to those people in relation to the financing of their private houses.

As a result of the intervention of the Minister local authorities have raised the borrowing sum to £4,500. I fail to understand why this time last year a person with an income of £2,000 could not qualify for the benefit of the funds that were available for housing. I am glad that the present Government have taken the practical steps of raising the income limit from £1,800 to £2,350.

In this regard I wish to add my own observations for the information of the Minister. In the event of a new wage agreement being reached either late this year or early next year and if there are all-round increases in wages to meet the substantial cost of living increases, I hope that during the coming year it may be possible for the Minister to reconsider this figure. The income limit for supplementary grants was raised from £1,950 to £2,350 which included the sum of £100 in respect of each child in a family. This change must bring numerous applications for supplementary grants within the financial benefit of the funds that are available for housing. Is it not disturbing the ardent admirers of Fianna Fáil that this courageous step taken by the Coalition Government either would not or could not have been taken by the last Administration? Despite this, Deputy Molloy will tell us that no benefits have accrued to our people as a result of the change in Government. Everybody knows that if Fianna Fáil were in office today the section of the community to which I have referred would be debarred from qualifying for housing loans and supplementary grants.

On behalf of my constituents I express my appreciation to the Minister and to the Government in general for the manner in which they have increased the amounts that can be borrowed from local authorities. We all know that building costs are increasing, that a house costing, say, £5,000 to build last year costs at least £300 more to build this year. None of us is foolish enough not to presume that this time next year the increase will be of the same proportion because of the ever-increasing costs of material and labour. That is why I hope the Minister will keep the question of income limits under constant review. In this way he will be ensuring that no young married couple nor no other family who are in need of housing will be deprived of the opportunity of providing a house for themselves so long as they have the ability otherwise to do so.

I am glad that the majority of our people are progressive and courageous enough to engage in the building of homes for themselves. This is borne out by the great expansion in private housebuilding. Even more encouraging is the number of people who have been living in local authority houses but who are now endeavouring to build private houses for themselves and to dispose of the original dwellings to those whose means qualify them for such housing. We should encourage this trend in every way possible. Not only will it be to the benefit of the people concerned but it will benefit also the local authorities. I can never understand why there should be such great haste on the part of building societies, local authorities or banking institutions for a quick recovery of money invested in housing because houses appreciate in value all the time. Therefore, a person who invests money in housing is investing wisely. A good house should serve two generations.

Regrettably, we still see some of the old mudwalled cabins in various parts of the country. Some of these have been standing for 200 years. Why should all the financial obligations in respect of a house be discharged during the lifetime of the original owner? Why cannot some arrangement be made whereby the following generation could share some of this burden since they, too, will benefit from the property?

The housing of our people is, perhaps, one of the greatest national and social problems we have. Let us not sound too favourable a note less the Minister for Local Government might become too optimistic, because there is a tremendous job before him to break the back of the housing problem. This job requires the co-operation of every local authority, every Member of this House and those involved in voluntary organisations and community councils. The solving of our housing problem depends on this co-operation.

In this country between 30,000 and 40,000 people are on the waiting list to be housed by local authorities and tens of thousands are flat dwellers. At the same time thousands of young married couples are living in unhealthy and overcrowded conditions. Their children do not have facilities to play, a recreational area, proper lighting or ventilation. This is a huge problem that must be tackled courageously.

We also have the problems of housing young married couples, the problem of housing large families, of re-housing those living in congested areas and of providing suitable houses for the aged. Our old people should be encouraged to live in their own community rather than having to go to county institutions. I look forward to the day during the lifetime of this Government when, with the co-operation of the Ministers for Health and Local Government, we will see an end to admissions to county institutions for old people except those in need of medical or mental treatment.

If old people are capable of remaining in their own home environment we should organise community effort to ensure that they can do this. Through the regional health boards we can allow these people to live in their own community. The provision of prefabs or maisonettes would help to solve this problem. I hope the Minister for Local Government will have the officers of his Department work in harmony and in step with the officers of the regional health boards so that an extensive survey as to the housing needs of the elderly can be carried out. Many old people would be capable of remaining in their own community if there was someone to assist them in their shopping and help them keep their house in a reasonable standard of cleanliness.

All this work can be done through community effort. A lot of it can be done by our young people who, despite all the criticism of them, are as good today as ever. Every time the trumpet is sounded in my area the first to fill the gaps are young boys and girls. Whether it is looking after the old, giving assistance to the meals on wheels scheme or any other charitable work, the young people have always rallied to the call.

In my opinion the local authorities should be asked by the Department to submit the requirements for their area of the housing of the aged in an effort to stem and halt the admissions of these people to institutions. Every effort should be made to give these people contentment, peace and happiness, and a home of their own is the only thing that can bring this to them.

I do not know what the priorities of Fianna Fáil are but they seem to be more disturbed and worried over the stopping of office blocks and buildings than they are over the acceleration of the housing problem. They do not seem to be concerned about the need to house the old people, the people to whom this nation owes a debt of gratitude for their long service as workers within the community. The housing of these people is of vital concern to us all. I am sure the Department of Local Government, in conjunction with the Department of Health, will be able to produce a report on the nation's requirements in this regard. When this survey is available we should get on with the work and not be tinkering with office blocks to facilitate those from across seas who require luxurious office accommodation if our own poor people cannot be accommodated in their native district. A lot of these people have to seek the shelter of charitable institutions.

We should endeavour to give these old people their freedom. We should tell them that their freedom is guaranteed and that their old age is no great handicap when it comes to living in the community. If we do this we will be helping them greatly. While it is necessary and essential to house young married couples we should never forget the need to house the aged. We should always bear in mind the words of the late President Kennedy, who told us that a country that cannot look after its poor and aged cannot afford to defend its rich for very long.

In this period of inflation and big spending are we not inclined to forget that there are still in our midst big numbers of lonely aged people who do not have their own homes? However, with the new Minister for Local Government, new drive and new energy, I feel certain that we will courageously tackle in every county the problem of the housing of the aged. I am convinced we have the will to do it, and if we have the will we will find the way. This would be a most desirable and most charitable undertaking.

I presume that in the next few years we will be able to house the large number of flat dwellers we have in every town. I am appalled at the position in Tullamore in my own constituency. No matter how many houses the local authority build, the demand for housing appears to be endless. It is a sign of great progress to see towns progressing. We must endeavour to clear out the flats. You cannot rear a young family or a large family in a flat. We cannot encourage people to have large families in two rooms or in one room. There is a social as well as a moral obligation on this State to ensure that young couples who are married are not caged in the gloom and dimness of a single room. I know young married couples with three and four children who live in deplorable circumstances. We must break the back of this problem. We have a duty to house married couples who are living in flats and trying to rear families in most unChristian, inhuman and insanitary conditions.

Even the target set by the Minister, which is an ambitious target—and I am sure he will achieve it—still will not be enough to break the back of the housing problem which has been building up over the years because it was not tackled courageously by Fianna Fáil. It is being tackled now. There was too much dependence on local authority building and not enough on private building. Let us encourage more people to build their own homes with the funds available. Let us have an extension of maisonettes for those who require them. Let us have a big breakthrough. Let us provide as quickly as possible houses for young married couples who are now living in flats.

This is a big problem. As well as being a national and a political problem it is a huge social problem, but it is not too big for this Government to tackle. It is not too big a problem to win the confidence of all our people because all those people who own their own homes appreciate them and have sympathy and understanding for those who do not. What an appalling situation it must be for the mother of three, four or five children to try to bring a pram up a narrow iron staircase to a flat or to have to go down into a damp basement with her family.

Every year now people are marrying younger and they go on the list for housing. It is a gratifying aspect of rural life today that there are so many young marriages. Let us not handicap young married people by a lack of housing accommodation. The lack of houses has been responsible for breaking up marriages and breaking up families. Those of us who are engaged in a big programme of social reform know quite well the big housing problem which faces our people. There are numerous cases in which husband and wife are living apart because of a lack of housing accommodation. There are many cases where children are living with their grandparents because of a lack of housing accommodation. That is not a proud housing record to have. If we want to change that situation we must view it from a social and Christian outlook.

It is wrong to separate husband from wife. It is wrong to restrict the right of parents to have as many children as they want because of a lack of housing accommodation. It is wrong from every aspect of life, social, political and moral. This rests at the doorstep of the Government in office. It rests at the door step of everybody. It was at the doorstep of Fianna Fáil sufficiently long and there was no response to it. It is now at the doorstep of the National Coalition. It is now their responsibility and their job to remedy that situation. It is a far bigger problem than the officers of the Minister's Department realise. It has far-reaching social effects. It has far-reaching effects on the preservation of rural Ireland. It has far-reaching effects on the survival of family life and family unity in Ireland. The provision of one home for one family is an absolute necessity.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 21st November, 1973.
Top
Share