Vol. 282 No. 6
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £48,953,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of December, 1975, 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.
I have a point to make with regard to LIS grants and I can make it on the main Estimate just as well as on the Supplementary Estimate. I want to find out the allocation of this money. Is any particular type of accommodation road specified? Is the money to be used specifically for the improvement of bog roads? There are hundreds in need of repair. They are being used a great deal at the moment. If the money is confined to turf-producing counties great progress could be made. The Minister does not seem to have attached the importance he should to these roads in the light of the fuel crisis. These roads are of paramount importance in counties like Donegal, Mayo and Kerry where a great deal of native fuel is being produced by private effort but access facilities to turbary plots are nonexistent. That is one of the main points which I wanted the Minister to answer.
Before the Minister answers, would he state if there will be more money available to facilitate those who wish to provide their own fuel? Will there be more money for those who wish to repair bog roads for the purpose of providing their own turf?
There is a subhead which relates to the scheme of grants towards the cost of improving accommodation or bog roads for the joint benefit of groups of farmers. This is not being confined to turf-producing counties. Practically every county has an area where turf is and can be produced. The grants are allocated. The local authorities may do something about this matter. I agree that it might be an idea to encourage people to cut their own turf at present. They do not seem to need much encouragement this year. I have an extra £500,000 for this this year and I would imagine that much will be done.
It is only a drop in the ocean.
Deputy Callanan asked me whether the 10 per cent is all that is required. I have written to him on this matter.
The Minister will agree that the additional £500,000 only brings the amount available this year to what it was last year without taking inflation into consideration. I wish to impress on the Minister the need to suggest to local authorities that a considerable amount of this money might be used for the development of bog roads. In my own constitutency efforts to obtain money for this purpose have proved fruitless. In a year when we are being advised to conserve energy anything that can be done in this respect should be done. The Minister should advise the local authorities to use a reasonable percentage of any money available for such work.
Nobody knows as well as the elected representatives how the money should be used. I am sure they will bring pressure on the local authorities. Much money can be used. The £1 million this year is only a little more than £750,000 for the nine months last year but at least that amount was used last year. For many years back much money has been used on this work. The £1 million may not be enough but it should do much of the work which people require to have done in order to improve bog roads and bog drains.
I would like to raise a very urgent local matter with the Minister in regard to Enniscorthy Urban Council. The council have in progress a very big water scheme estimated to cost about £600,000. Loan approval has been granted for £520,000. In December, 1974, the council applied for a capital allocation of £390,000. Last month Enniscorthy Urban Council were given a capital allocation of £164,000. This is completely insufficient for the work in progress. That amount of money has already been spent. The urban council have asked for a further allocation of something over £200,000. Will the Minister ensure that sufficient capital funds will be made available to Enniscorthy Urban Council to provide for the continuation of this scheme? Otherwise Enniscorthy Urban Council will have no funds at their disposal. If the capital allocation is not forthcoming immediately we must close down the scheme. Will the Minister say "yes" or "no" and avoid deputations?
Deputy S. Browne is correct. This is an extraordinary case where the contractor estimated the speed he would go at and the money necessary was made available but he went much faster than he himself expected to go. The result is that he requires a lot more money. The matter is at present under consideration. Deputy S. Browne should not worry too much about it.
They do not have to come in a deputation and ask for it?
They do not have to come up to be examined by the officials.
The scheme will go ahead?
I would like the Minister to explain the delay in the publication of the review of the building and construction industry this year.
This is much later than expected. A number of points were being discussed. This meant that it was not possible to have the meeting until June. I told Deputy Faulkner a few weeks ago that the discussion was taking place. We are trying to get up-to-date figures. I hope to have the publication as soon as possible. It is much later than I would like to have it.
I raised this point recently. The answer I was given at that time is the answer the Minister has just given me. I understood then that the meetings took place in December or January and that there was an interim publication in February and a final publication in May. This year the meeting does not seem to have taken place until six months later than usual.
A normal discussion took place in February. There was no question of the publication of the results then. It was just a question of discussing matters which had to be decided on at a subsequent meeting. I admit it would have been better if we could have had the final meeting earlier. At present we are attempting to get up-to-date figures from the building societies but we have not got them. This has held us up. I assure Deputy Faulkner that the figures will be published as soon as possible.
It is not usual to make an interim report available?
No.
Because of the whole position in regard to the building industry it is necessary to have this information available as soon as possible.
It is necessary to have as much information as possible about any subject to be discussed. The usual procedure was that Estimates were passed without discussion and if it was necessary to have a further discussion a token Estimate was passed and this allowed the matter to be raised again at a later date. In many cases the matter never came up again. On this occasion it was decided that we would have important questions on which somebody wanted information debated and that such questions would be answered by the Minister concerned. There is no question of the information which Deputy Faulkner wants being withheld. He will get it as soon as it is available.
This is an important matter. The inference in the Minister's reply is that the matter was not important enough to be raised.
Any information which anyone requires is important.
The Minister mentioned the figure of 10 per cent. I have a few points to make about bog roads. The grant given is preventing bog roads being repaired. I have known of schemes to be turned down because the estimates for them were too high. The cost of repairing a bog road is much higher than that of repairing an ordinary road. I would like the Minister to have a look at that. This is being used by the local authorities for turning down schemes because the estimates are too high. There is a maximum grant for ordinary roads and drains for farms. That has been increased but schemes are still not being done if the estimates are too high. The same applies to bog development.
I was very disappointed with the letter I got from the Minister dealing with the 10 per cent which said that where the council had difficulty in getting the valuation, it is 10 per cent when a large number of people were using a bog. I remember the late Deputy Kitt thanking the Minister for making that change. At that time we understood that where there was a bog at the end of the road the 10 per cent could be applied if it was less than the valuation. In his letter the Minister stated that where there is difficulty in getting the valuation——
That is purely a matter for the local authority.
It is, but the Minister is leaving the local authorities in the position that they have to decide. I understood that the late Deputy Kitt had thanked the Minister for making that change.
To meet Deputy Callanan's point I will look into that. There was no intention of tightening it. I was trying to widen it to cover Deputy Callanan's point.
This is a question of interpretation. I want the Minister to spell out that where there is a bog at the end of a road, if the 10 per cent is less than the valuation it should apply in that case.
I will deal with that today.
I would also ask the Minister to consider the grant per applicant so that the bog roads can be done.
That is purely a matter for the local authority. They have to decide the costs and whether they can allow it to be done. I could not possibly decide what bog roads should or should not be done.
The Minister will appreciate that there is a definite maximum grant per farm which can be given under the LIS. Those grants were increased last year. The county manager will tell an applicant that it is laid down in the regulations that if it is above a certain figure it will have to be turned down. I have seen various schemes turned down because the estimates were too high.
I would like the Minister to explain his further letter dealing with the £100,000 for small schemes. He sanctioned £30,000. As a result, many small sanitary and water schemes will have to be abandoned. Although the Minister mentioned this in his letter, he did not tell us why we did not get the £100,000.
If I had £100 million extra now I could allocate it for sanitary services around the country, and more could be spent in some counties than others. There is a limited amount which is allocated and each local authority must get a fair allocation. If the Deputy looks at the list, he will find that Galway got a fair allocation.
We got nothing last year.
That was not the fault of the Department.
We are only getting £4,000 extra this year and——
It was never intended that they would all be done in the one year.
We are only getting £30,000, although we asked for £100,000.
I got a written reply to two questions yesterday and I was very dissatisfied with the replies. One of the questions was:
To ask the Minister for Local Government the number of final instalments of new house grants paid in 1973-74 in respect of houses where building commenced in 1972, 1971, 1970, 1969, 1968, 1967, 1966 and 1965.
and a similar question relating to 1974-75. The reply I got was:
The information is not available in my Department.
I would like the Minister to explain that.
It means simply that the information is not available in my Department. Even if it was available, it would require a great deal of work to get it. It is not available in the Department. Those figures for grant applications are not given. There is no point saying they could be got——
That is whitewash.
It is not whitewash, it is the truth although it may not be palatable.
I could accept that if the reply I got was that it would have taken an inordinate amount of time and money to get the information, but I am not satisfied that information of this type is not available in the Department If a question is put down about the number of starts and completions in any given year in relation to private housing that information is available.
Not for private enterprise houses. It would mean going through about 100,000 files to see if the information was available.
As I said, I could accept the reply that it would take an inordinate amount of time and money to get that information, but the reply I got was most unsatisfactory. When grants are paid for private houses I cannot understand why the information is not available.
I am informed that that information is not on file. The inspector making the report would say that it was at a certain stage. He would not give the information when it was started. While people applying for grants may say when they propose to start building, it is well known that some may start within the normal time but others may not start for a further six or 12 months. I would like to give the information but I just cannot do it.
I am still not happy. Where the inspector looks at these application forms, is there no information given as to when the House building will be started?
No. There is, on the application form, an indication of when the builder of a single house proposes to start. But where a person is building a scheme of houses, that information would not be available. The inspector does not fill the date of start, because he would not know it. He gives the stage at which he finds the house. There would be no reason why this information should not be given.
Surely the Minister is not correct and is not giving the correct information to the House? I agree with Deputy Faulkner when he say that if yesterday's reply had been that it would take too long or cost too much to get the information we could understand that and accept it. If there is a change in the level of grants being paid, the criterion is the date on which the foundation has been laid. This is available in respect of every private house.
It is not.
It is, and I know it is.
It is not. On a point of order, a Chathaoirleach. Deputy Cunningham has made a statement and I am telling him that he is incorrect. I would ask him to accept that I am telling the truth.
I will not accept it because I know——
There is a way of dealing with that.
I know that the payment of a grant——
The Deputy does not know.
Let us take the case of a large number of people applying for and receiving the higher rate of grants. The level of rates has increased many times over the last five or six years.
If there was a change in the rate of grant it would be necessary to specifically ask for date of commencement, but that is not so in the generality of cases and therefore it is not given.
It is.
I have stated categorically that it is not given.
Payment of the grant in each case is dependent on the date and in the case of houses under the higher rate of grant system it is necessary to know the date of commencement.
It is not.
It is, because the means test is based on the date on which the foundations were laid. When the inspector goes out part of his instructions are to find out the date of commencement. Otherwise the grant cannot be paid.
This is not correct. I am not saying that Deputy Cunningham is telling lies but he is talking about something the facts of which he does not know. When there is a change in grant, it is necessary to get certain information, but there is no question whatever of the information for which Deputy Faulkner asked being made available in every case. The information is not there. I am giving the information as I got it from my officials.
Has there been any change in recent years in regard to the procedure in this matter, because I know personally that at one time it was necessary to have an inspection when the foundations were opened before the building went any further? There may have been a change.
No, the local authority bye-laws in some cases lay this down and they may do that. That has nothing to do with us. We do not know it.
With regard to the income limit of a person, supposing a person applies for a grant and gets a State grant and maybe not until two or three years after will he know about the supplementary grant. There must be a date of commencement, and I came across a case last week of a person who built a house in 1969 and who did not get the supplementary grant and he has now discovered that his earnings in 1969 were less than the figure required to qualify. Surely there must be somebody who knows the date of commencement in cases like that.
In cases like that there would be time to find out when the house started but only in that case, and there is no way in which the matter can be proven. The date on which the man proposed to do it—the county council files would have it because they were supposed to inspect the site, but this has nothing to do with us at all.
Take the situation in the Dublin region. If a house is commenced when the foundations are dug and before the concrete is poured, the county council send out an inspector to examine it and it is recorded on the file—inspection of foundations on such a date. In the same local authority, there is an appointed officer by the Department for the payment of such grants. He signs them and sends them to the Department and then they give out the authorisation so that the figures are available of the date of commencement of every house within the local authority area.
No. What the Deputy says is quite true. An inspection is carried out but the report does not go on file in the Department of Local Government. This is what I have been trying to say all along. There are some areas where it does not happen. If the local authority examine the foundation when poured, they will know, but they do not pass such information on to the Department, and every local authority does not do it. There may be a crossing of lines here but what I am telling the House is the situation. I am sorry, but that is the position.
The Department would have some information in relation to the number of final payments paid last year?
Yes.
And therefore if they were to examine the files in relation to these final payments, would they not be able to give the information I require?
The Deputy is now saying something different. He suggests that in relation to one year if 17,000 files were examined, it might be possible to hazard a guess as to when the houses were started, but that is not the information asked for. He asked for information over a whole period and I do not think we would be entitled to hazard a guess in that regard. He wants definite information and we cannot give it. We could hazard a guess if we were prepared to go through 100,000 files.
No. The Minister misunderstands the situation. All that is involved in the 1973-74 year is the number of files in respect of which grants were paid, final payments were made. They do not have to go through 1972, 1971 and 1970. They simply take each of those files in respect of which grants were paid in the given year 1974 to find out how many of them were paid in respect of houses which commenced in the various years.
That would not give the information the Deputy asked for. He asked for information in respect of a number of years, over a period of three years, and I am saying that if they are in relation to one year, it would show that some of these started in one of these years but that is not the information he asked for.
It is. The Minister misunderstands. Let us take it that in a given year there were 17,000 final grant payments. All I am asking him is that those files be examined to see in what year each of these houses was commenced. That is all that is involved and it is the question I asked.
Taking one year, there would be approximately 17,000 files. Secondly, it would only give the number but would not give the information which is not on the file, and all one could say is that there was at that stage on a certain date a number of houses and therefore these must have been started around a certain time. That is all.
Let me ask one further question. In going through these files, at least there would be some information as to when the individual concerned said he intended starting. If he said in relation to a particular house that he proposed starting in March, 1970, at least we would be correct in assuming that he would start reasonably soon after that, so that while I accept that it would be difficult to give specific information, nevertheless the Minister possibly misunderstood, certainly in his earlier reply, the situation because he thought I was suggesting that he should go through the files for all these other years. All I was asking, and I want to ask again, is whether there is a note taken in relation to the number of houses built which received final grants and the number of files in relation to these in 1973-74.
The number finished are recorded, and the grant paid at a certain time, and we add the whole lot up.
I assume that in some cases when the last part of the grant is paid the officials concerned will check the file to see if it is correct. Do they take note of any other particulars when they are compiling the figures?
Does the Deputy mean the date of starting? There would not be any point in that. There is enough paperwork already without starting on that procedure.
At some stage the Minister gave some indication of the number of houses started.
I think the Deputy is referring to local authority houses.
The term "starts" is used.
Grants allocated would represent approximately what are known as "starts". They are not very accurate but they give an approximate idea. These statistics have been available all along.
Therefore, if the Minister were asked a question about the number of grants allocated he would be able to give the information?
That information is published. It is not necessary to come to me for it.
It may be like some other housing statistics—six months late.
We are carrying out the same procedure as was adopted formerly.
In the past housing statistics were issued much sooner than appears to happen now.
From the hazy information available in the Department, as we have now discovered from the Minister, it is fair comment to put a rather large question mark opposite the blaze of publicity about so many houses starting in any particular month. As the figures are produced at present, they show nothing more than the fact that a number of inspectors were sent by the Department to pay grants on houses built some years ago. In this way the Minister will have good figures at the end of the year and will be able to boast at the Labour Party Conference about his achievements. There is more unemployment in the building industry now than ever before. Those are figures we should be discussing today, not the number of starts and completions or the mythical figures thought up by the Department.
Deputy Burke is a very petty person. In 1960 the then Government decided on how they would do certain things and on the method of compiling statistics and there has been no change during the years. Whatever figures were produced in those years were done on the basis of decisions taken. If they were right in 1960 and later, they are right now. It is just a question of comparison. Deputy Burke is being petty and mean in a discussion where pettiness and meanness have no place. He would be well advised to stick to what we are discussing. This is a serious matter, where political points are not so hot. The public will not give credit to people like Deputy Burke for making statements like that.
I can assure the Minister I will worry about that.
The Deputy has every reason to worry.
Will the Minister tell the House if there is any source from which this information can be obtained?
There is no source from which it can definitely be obtained. If we went to all the local authorities who have such bye-laws and asked them for information regarding the foundations they examined we could give that information but, since all local authorities do not do that, the information would not be complete. If the Deputy wishes we could give him the date of application for grants. However, that would not be very much because in many cases applications are made but the jobs are not started. There is a particular instance of this where, before 1st February, 1973, a tremendous number of foundations were laid because my predecessor brought in a very good regulation with regard to the question of the valuation of houses on that date. In order to avoid that regulation many people poured more foundations than they required. This is an admitted fact. Therefore, even that source will not give Deputy Faulkner the information he requires.
Is there any way of relating figures for "starts", which are somewhat ambiguous, to the number of completions?
Frankly, I do not think there is—at least with any degree of certainty.
Would the Minister not agree that it would be a good idea to have such a recording system? It does not seem such a complicated job, possibly with the aid of computers, to find out how many houses were started on a certain date and when they were completed.
There was a suggestion that the Department were quite hazy about these matters. What has been used since 1960, which I consider quite good, is the figure of grants allocated. This is a fairly good base on which to compile figures. I do not think the date on which a person starts a house matters very much. Grant allocations give a fairly good idea of when the job started and that is sufficient.
Would the Minister tell the House the number of local authorities who do not have the kind of bye-laws he mentioned?
The majority of them have no such bye-laws. The large urban authorities have such bye-laws but not the majority.
Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to a report that the Department of Local Government are applying rates on farm buildings, such as piggeries? There was a recent report that this could involve a payment of £20 for units catering for 100 pigs? Is that contrary to the 1960 Act?
I know nothing about it. Nobody in my Department is involved. It would be a matter for the Valuation Office because they are the authority who would make a decision in such a case.
Will the Minister have the matter examined because it could have serious consequences for the pig industry?
Representations would have to be made to the Valuation Office. I cannot influence them and I have no authority in such matters. Perhaps the local authority of which the Deputy is a member would make representations to the Valuation Office?
I was on a deputation to the Minister some time ago with regard to the scheme of house purchase. Will he bear in mind that a person who bought his house a year ago paid much more than he would pay if he were purchasing it now?
The Deputy is referring to the scheme introduced in 1973. That scheme is a final scheme for houses purchased up to 31st March last—the date was extended on a few occasions. The Deputy is referring to those people who bought their houses under the previous scheme and who are now aggrieved about the price they paid. This is an important matter which I am considering. However, these people entered into a legal contract with their eyes open and, therefore, it is an intricate job to try to do something about it. I am considering the matter but, as I mentioned in the House before, I cannot promise I will do anything about it until I study all the facts. I know Deputy Moore is not involved in it, but certain people are attempting to organise others to protest. This is the wrong way to go about it. We all know what happened. If they would leave it and let it be sorted out, if it can be sorted out, they would be better off.
Roughly speaking, how would the Minister handle it?
I wish I could tell the Deputy but quite honestly I cannot. As Deputy Moore understands, I am as interested in it as he is.
The Minister was reported as saying in a speech in Dungarvan that he did not propose to make all of the money available to the local authorities for which they applied as they would not be able to use all they applied for. Does the Minister still hold to that?
What I said was pretty close to that. When a number of local authorities were asked at the beginning of the year to give an estimate of the amount of money they required, they submitted an estimate which included many things which could not possibly be done this year, including building schemes for which they had not acquired the land, and for which no planning had been done. I said the money they would get would be for work which could be carried out this year. Deputy Faulkner would probably agree that it would be rather foolish for a local authority to tie up a lot of money which could be usefully spent by another local authority.
Basically the point the Minister was making was that some of the local authorities have not got schemes prepared to enable them to use the money.
That is correct.
One local authority sent the Minister an application for £6 million for infrastructural work in County Dublin for this year. They said they could spend the £6 million but the Minister sent them only £3 million. As well as that, he owed Dublin County Council £1½ million on 3rd June and the money did not arrive.
I am glad Deputy Burke raised that point. I saw that he was holding forth in another place. He used a phrase which I was very surprised to find him using.
Broke.
Local authorities were notified that they would be paid money for SDA loans and that they would get a percentage which would carry them on until 30th June and the balance would be allocated after that. They were also told that if they had any special case it would be examined by officials of the Department. This was done. The local authority Deputy Burke is talking about felt they could use £1½ million more. They got £1 million more and they were quite happy. They were able to carry on with that without any difficulty. It is only fair to point out that that local authority got by far the largest amount of money of any local authority. They got about three times what they were getting before I took office. In the circumstances I thought even Deputy Burke would be prepared to agree they were being treated generously. It was a little unfortunate that Deputy Burke should make that statement. These statements seem to reflect back on the maker rather than on the people they are intended to damage.
That is not the reaction I got in my constituency.
Deputy Burke's constituents did not realise that the Deputy was not telling them what the facts were.
A statement has been made by the Minister that the facts were not as I told them. The statement was based on a report by the County Manager. If the Minister wants to say the County Manager was wrong he should say that. He should not say I was wrong. I was quoting the County Manager.
The County Manager had not said anything when the Deputy made the statement.
He had prepared a written statement and we had it before us for about two hours before that. The Minister does not know the facts. He should not make statements if he does not know the facts.
The Deputy had not got it before him when he made the statement. I am afraid the briefing was not as good as it should have been.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we have more than 20 other Estimates to deal with and they must all be dealt with by 2 o'clock. Other people want to speak on other Estimates.
The Minister is aware that this year the allocation to Wicklow County Council for water and sewerage schemes is £25,000. Last year it was in the region of £32,000. I believe the Department are aware that in Wicklow we have debts amounting to £16,500 in this section which would leave us with a balance of £8,500. We in the county council were able to come up with an extra £2,000 which will leave us with a total of £10,500. We have three schemes in hand at the moment which will be terminating pretty soon and which our engineers estimate will cost £10,700. We have no money. We sent a request to the Department for a substantial amount of money for Wicklow because we have the work force and the technical force but we have not got the money.
I will have a look at what Deputy Murphy referred to. We have allocated a certain amount of money and it was given in relation to the ongoing works. I am a little confused about the problem Deputy Murphy mentioned but I will have a look at it. I will agree that inflation has a certain effect on it, but it is only fair to say that we are now giving three times as much as was being given when I took over. We are still not giving enough. I mentioned the figure of £100 million. One of my predecessors, Deputy Boland, said at one time——
Is it true that Wicklow is at the bottom of the list?
Nobody is at the bottom of the list.
Somebody must be.
The fact that Wicklow starts with a "W" does not make any difference. The former Deputy Boland said at one time that if he had £36 million he could solve the problems. He discovered he needed far more than that. I should like to see a lot more money being spent on water and sewerage schemes. I have been giving very substantial sums of money to areas where there was great need and I will continue to do so within the available money.
