Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 13 Dec 1977

Vol. 302 No. 8

Vote 28: Environment.

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,759,480 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1977, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for the Environment including grants to local authorities, grants and other expenses in connection with housing, and miscellaneous schemes and grants including a grant-in-aid.

Deputies will have noticed that the name of the Vote has been altered in line with the changes made some months ago in the designation and role of the former Department of Local Government. The Taoiseach, in advising the House of the intention to make these changes, indicated that the new Department would have the primary responsibility for environmental matters and that this was considered appropriate because of the widespread functions of the Department of Local Government in building and the provision of roads, other services and amenities. The arrangements that may be necessary to give further effect to the Department's special role on environmental matters are at present under consideration. Obviously it is something that requires a good deal of consultation with several other Departments. In the meantime my Department will continue to promote the welfare of the physical environment. This will be done mainly, as in the past, through the local government system by which pollution is controlled and the quality of the environment protected through the operation of the physical planning system and the provision of key environmental services. We are, therefore, still very much in the business of local government, which must continue to be strong and effective if the environment is to be healthy.

Local government is big business in terms of the services it provides for the good of the community and in terms of the employment it both affords directly and supports in the private sector. Not least, it is big in terms of the finances it requires to provide those services and that employment. The present Supplementary Estimate is for a gross amount of £6,792,480, which is offset in part by savings of £5,033,000 elsewhere on the Vote. The net sum required is £1,759,480. Accordingly, the total net provision for the Department's Vote for the present year comes to £85,874,500. Great as this total is it represents part only of the total expenditure on local government services in 1977. Money for the services is also provided from the Local Loans Fund, from the Road Fund and by local authorities from their own resources. When all these moneys are reckoned, the overall total is estimated to be over £450 million. Of this sum about £270 million is financed from Exchequer sources.

The present Supplementary Estimate is spread over nine subheads. The two largest of these—subheads M and S— are closely linked in the sense that each of them deals with expenditure on roads. When I took office the total grants allocated for 1977 to local authorities for road works were £26.57 million. This comprised £17 million from the Road Fund, £7.57 million originally provided in subhead M of the Vote, and a further £2 million provided by the former Minister for Finance in this year's budget.

One of my first tasks as Minister was to identify areas under my control where additional employment could be generated in accordance with the Government's policy on job creation. As part of that exercise I examined the position of the building and construction industry which has suffered high unemployment in recent years and which is affected by the level of activity of local authorities, including their road works programme. As part of a package of job creation projects announced by the Government shortly after taking office the allocations to local authorities for road works was increased substantially so allowing additional road works schemes to a total value of £5 million to be commenced in 1977. The expanded grants programme and the contribution by local authorities will ensure that something of the order of £63 million will be expended this year on road works.

As a result of the Government's action, grants allocated for road improvement works this year amount to £16.193 million compared with £6.732 million in 1976 and, taken in conjunction with the normal proportion of block grants devoted to the same purpose, represent a total State investment of about £21 million in improvement works on public roads in 1977. This expansion of the works programme is an indication of the importance I attach to the development of our public road network, having regard to the part it plays in the environmental, industrial, agricultural, commercial and social life of the country, its on-site and off-site employment potential, and its value to tourism.

In order to meet the payments falling due in respect of the foregoing roads programme in the current year and also to meet £4.35 million for administrative and so on expenses, including costs of collection of road tax and a contribution to the Garda Vote, as against £4.25 million provided for these purposes in the budget, it is necessary to increase the amount of the Exchequer grant under subhead M of the Vote from £9.57 million already voted to £12.17 million and I have, therefore, provided in the Supplementary Estimate for an additional amount of £2.6 million under the subhead.

One of the first duties I had to undertake as Minister was to introduce a token Supplementary Estimate related to the Government's undertaking to abolish the annual road tax on certain vehicles. I intimated at the time that a substantive Supplementary Estimate would be introduced when the effect on Road Fund income could be more accurately measured.

Due to the abolition, with effect from the 1st August last, of the tax on all "private" cars not exceeding 16 horse-power and on all motor cycles, it is estimated that the total income which will accrue to the Road Fund this year from motor taxation, and so on, receipts is £18.1 million. The expenses of the fund are £33.42 million, comprising £29.07 million in respect of grants to road authorities and £4.35 million in respect of the administrative and so on expenses to which I have referred above. Allowing for £12.17 million voted moneys under subhead M of the Vote, the additional amount now required under subhead S to meet the shortfall in motor tax receipts to the Road Fund in 1977 is £3.15 million.

The local improvements scheme provides seasonal employment on non-public roads and minor drainage projects. The number of applications on hands with local authorities has increased very substantially. In order to provide additional employment in 1977 I have increased the original provision for the scheme under subhead J from £1 million to £1½ million.

The extra provision required in subhead R is a direct result of the swift action taken by this Government in implementing its election manifesto. As I announced in Dáil Éireann on 6th July, 1977, the manifesto undertaking to give a special new house grant of £1,000 has been implemented with effect from the 27th May, 1977. The new grant is payable to persons purchasing or building a new house or flat who have not already purchased or built a dwelling for their own occupation. This new scheme was considered necessary mainly because of the financial burden on many, particularly young married couples, who are anxious to provide their own homes but were not entitled to any grant to do so because of the inequitable and highly restrictive means test for State grants imposed by the previous Government. The income limit imposed was as low as £1,950, plus £100 for each dependent person up to a maximum of £400, which debarred the great majority of house purchasers, including persons of very modest means from obtaining any great assistance. This decision to restrict new house grants to persons eligible on an income or valuation basis for supplementary grants from local authorities resulted in a massive reduction in grant activity. Only 6,388 grants were allocated last year compared with a total of 16,166 in 1975. In the first six months of 1977, only 2,050 grants were allocated and in the third quarter of 1977, the number fell to only 601. Thus only 2,651 grants were approved altogether in the first nine months of 1977. When introducing the £1,000 new house grant scheme, I took the opportunity to simplify and streamline procedures and to abolish unnecessary complexities. Under the old scheme, there were so many variations in the State grants payable that it was confusing to the public and obviously overdue for review. Another example was the method of calculation of the net floor area measurement which was unnecessarily complex. I replaced this with a simple gross area measurement.

Since the introduction of the scheme on 6th July last, there has been an unprecedented demand for application forms and it is certainly true to say that the scheme has captured the public interest. Up to 2nd December applications had been received from 6,414 applicants of which 1,685 were approved, 129 paid and 342 rejected. The remaining applications are under examination and in the majority of these further information is awaited from the applicants. I expect the vast majority of them will be approved.

The amount provided in the original 1977 estimate for new house grants was £2.5 million. When I announced the implementation of the £1,000 grant on 6th July, I had expected that the original allocation would be fully used this year on the old scheme of grants. However, because of the falling off in activity under the old scheme, which is understandable in view of the restrictions imposed on eligibility by the previous Government, estimated savings of £300,000 will arise this year on the old scheme of new house grants. Since it is an essential condition of the new scheme that a house must be completed and occupied before the grant may be paid, it is expected that payments under the new scheme this year will not exceed £280,000.

In implementation of a further one of the measures announced in the Government's programme on job creation, I introduced last August a scheme of grants to local authorities for certain environmental works which will provide about 250 new jobs. Allocations totalling £500,000, related to local unemployment figures, were notified to local authorities for works to be carried out under the scheme. The grants are based on 100 per cent recoupment of labour costs and 50 per cent of other expenses. The works selected by local authorities must have a high employment content and be of environmental benefit to the community. Provision is made in subhead G for a sum of £200,000 to meet payments to be made to local authorities before the end of the year on foot of work done under the scheme this year.

The Supplementary Estimate includes additional amounts of £90,000 required under subhead A for salaries and so on of departmental staff and £23,500 under subhead I to increase the grant-in-aid towards the administrative expenses of An Foras Forbartha. The need for these amounts arises from the application of the two phases of the 1977 National Wage Agreement and the removal of marriage differentials in certain salary scales.

Under subhead C a further £45,000 is needed to meet the extra cost of Post Office services attributable to higher postal and telephone charges. The amount to be received in appropriations-in-aid—subhead P—is being increased by £96,000. This arises from higher recoupments in respect of departmental administration costs from the Road Fund and by local authorities in respect of the operation of the combined purchasing system. There is a minor offsetting reduction in receipts of £4,000 arising from the termination of application fees for new house grants.

(Cavan-Monaghan): As the Minister told us in his opening remarks, the name of the Department under his control has been changed from the Department of Local Government to the Department of the Environment. As he also told us, and as the Taoiseach told us on 5th July last when announcing the new Department, the Department will concentrate on and have more time to devote to environmental matters.

Shortly after the new Government took office I put down a question to the Minister in an effort to ascertain what function he would be assuming in accordance with the Taoiseach's statement. I asked what changes were being made in the Department, what additional staff had been taken on, or what staff had been let go to other Departments. I could summarise the reply to that question by saying the Minister was unable to tell me what changes would be made in the Department as a result of that new name. It was quite clear from the Minister's reply that there would be no change and that all that had taken place was a change of name from the Department of Local Government to the Department of the Environment.

The Minister said if I repeated the question in a short time, in a matter of months, he would be in a position to give me further information. We are now discussing a Supplementary Estimate voting £200,000 for environmental matters and we have no further information about the Minister's plans for the environment. I do not propose at this stage to go into this matter at length because there will be another opportunity to do that. I want to put on record that the Minister's attitude to his new Department is simply not good enough. He now has responsibility for the environment whether he likes it or not.

The right to a quality environment was declared to be a basic human right by the United Nations at a Stockholm conference in 1972. The Minister's predecessor, Deputy Molloy, attended that conference at which the right to live in a human and not a dehumanising environment was declared as a basic right. They declared that slums and ghettos are environmental disaster areas and, therefore, need a crisis approach. They went on to say at that conference that such areas sow and spawn delinquency, crimes, social and family disharmony and community disaffection, all of which are reaped by the community at large, but more especially by those who live in those ghettos.

I want to put the Minister on notice that we on this side of the House will be expecting results from his new Department under these headings. We will expect the Minister to declare these areas or these ghettos environmental disaster areas. We will expect a special fund to be set up, supported from the EEC, to combat the problems in these areas and to provide urban renewal and extra intensive services to combat the degradation of these environments. As long as I am spokesman for my party, I will expect the Minister to increase educational efforts and to have campaigns, awards and prizes for the most improved street or house in the type of area I have been speaking about.

It is obvious that education is the key to a future quality environment. People need to be conscious of the shortcomings of the environment in which they live when that environment is bad. They should have the desire to improve it and they should know where to get the necessary help. So far as I can see, the Minister has not announced any plans to educate people in need of education to achieve a better environment. They are not aware of the need to improve their environment or they would not act as they sometimes do. We need a commitment from the Minister that he is concerned about this and that, under his new title, he will embark on an educational programme to ensure that people realise the necessity for an improved environment. I could talk about Dublin Bay.

I am afraid the Chair would have something to say about that.

The Deputy should stick to the Cavan lakes and leave Dublin to us.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I could speak at length about Dublin Bay and the necessity for conserving this very fine amenity. I could also speak about rural Ireland, as Deputy Quinn reminded me. The Minister may find himself in a rather peculiar position when he discovers that one of the greatest offenders against the pure environment are local authorities for which, under his other hat, he is responsible.

I believe that to date, as I said when I put the question, in order to ascertain what we might expect from the new Department of the Environment that that Department was set up in an ad hoc fashion without any thought being given to it. I also believe that in irrelevance it belongs to the realm of white rabbits. It was produced by the Minister for Planning and Development who might more appropriately be described as the Minister for Tall Hats and White Rabbits because this is such an animal. It has been let loose without any study, without any in-depth thought or without any preparation. I do not want to go into this point further at this time; I want to put the Minister on notice that he is now in charge of the Department of the Environment. The Taoiseach when setting up that Department on the 5th July last stated that the Minister would have more time to concentrate on environmental matters.

We will be expecting him to create a situation in which he will not be ashamed to be reminded of the decision taken at the Stockholm conference in 1972. Heretofore one Minister could blame another and one Department could say that environmental matters were more for one Department than another. The Taoiseach recognised that when he stated, in setting up the Department, that there had always been a degree of uncertainty which Department or agency were responsible for environmental matters. The setting up of this Department was meant to put an end to that uncertainty and to place responsibility fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Minister for the Environment. That is where it is now and we will expect results.

This Supplementary Estimate provides money for An Foras Forbartha, additional money for the local improvements scheme and the Road Fund. These three injections of money mean that local authorities will have more work to do. In many cases these funds are augmented by funds from local rates. It is necessary there-fore that we have a look at the overall position in the light of instructions given by the Minister to local authorities and ask ourselves: how are these local authorities going to spend the money voted here? Is it more than a coincidence that the Department of Local Government have shed that title and will no longer be known by that name? Does that mean we are about to see the end of local democracy and local Government? I am afraid it does.

I welcome the abolition of rates which the Minister promised. When in his pre-election manifesto, he undertook to abolish local rates on private dwellings and other hereditaments, he did not tell the people that he proposed to abolish local democracy and place local authorities in strait-jackets and that as a result they would be no more than rubber stamps in the hands of the Custom House.

A series of circulars sent out by the Minister within a few months means that local authorities are now to be instructed as to the amount of money they may spend, irrespective of their services. Irrespective of their plans for 1978, they are to be tied to an increase of 11 per cent—I have a circular here but I will not have time to place it on the record. That means that Dublin Corporation have to strike a rate——

The Deputy may not go into details on that; he must keep to the matters in the Supplementary Estimate.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I will do my best——

I appreciate that it may be necessary to refer to the circular but you may not go into detail.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I will not go into detail but I want to give one or two examples. I cannot see how the money being voted can be spent by local authorities if they are going to be placed in a straitjacket. Dublin Corporation will have to adopt a rate of £11.65 instead of £11.99. This means that they will be short £250,000 for reconstruction grants, £220,000 for minor sanitary services and £180,000 for the purchase of land for open spaces. We are now talking about the Ministry for the Environment and curtailing expenditure on land for open spaces.

Was that Dublin County Council or Dublin Corporation?

(Cavan-Monaghan): Dublin County Council, I am sorry. That money is to be found elsewhere—it is to be borrowed, that is the only other way it can be found.

Monaghan County Council is one of the only county councils with a proper estimate committee which has brought in estimates year after year which were accepted by the county council without question. They had to reduce their rate this year by 73p in the £ or £200,000. Dublin County Council in striking a rate that will be short by the figures I have given—in the neighbourhood of £1 million—will not take into account any increase in wages that might result from the present wage round. I want an assurance from the Minister this evening that there will be no cut-back in services or in employment this year. All over the country expenditure on roads is being cut-back to implement the Minister's direction. As I said, when the Minister promised to abolish rates he did not tell the people that he was going to put the local authorities in a straitjacket and stifle local democracy, as we understand it.

I do not have time to deal with the Minister's £1,000 for new house grants. This is a gimmick. A man in my constituency who bought a cottage a few years ago and now finds it is inadequate has been refused a grant by the Department for a new house because he bought that cottage three or four years ago.

I was interested to hear the Minister say that for the first six months of 1977 housing grants approved amounted to only 2,050 but he went on to say that for the second half of the year grants approved under his new scheme amounted to only 1,685. He told us that great interest has been shown in the scheme; but that interest is only reflected in the application forms, not in the number of grants approved. I gave a clear example of the deficiency in the scheme. Here you have a man who has qualified for the £1,000 grant but he is denied that grant because he bought a cottage a few years ago, for which he did not get a grant. Now he wants to house himself properly but he is disqualified from obtaining a grant because of the Minister's provisions in the scheme.

I welcome the addition of £500,000 to the local improvements scheme. If the Minister is going to borrow money to finance schemes it is as well that he should do so in respect of this project. If he is going to embark on a rake's progress of borrowing money to implement many schemes, by all means let him borrow for this scheme.

As a rural Deputy for many years I am aware of a shortcoming in the scheme and I have put down a parliamentary question in regard to it. If a number of people living on a boreen or a lane want the lane repaired, the undertaking can be obstructed by one person who may be on bad terms with the other people. I have applied to successive Ministers to take authority to compel that man to agree. It could be done quite easily by the county council serving a notice on the objector telling him it was proposed to carry out the work and giving him the right of appeal to the District Court if he did not agree. I know the Minister has been advised not to do this, that it will create difficulties. Similar advice was given to his predecessors. They were also told that there were not many such cases but I have nearly a dozen on hands at the moment. It is an outrage that people should be allowed to obstruct a worth-while scheme just because they are on bad terms with their neighbours.

I understand this debate must conclude at 7.15 p.m. and I do not wish to take up any more time. I have dealt with some points and I shall avail of another time, perhaps not too far away, to elaborate on them.

I welcome this Supplementary Estimate. The expenditure is necessary and I am glad to see the Minister coming to this House looking for more money. The Supplementary Estimate is interesting in that it reveals on the part of the Department a certain approach to policy that, even after what is still a short period for the new Department and the Minister, I find a bit distressing. Let me be very precise in what I mean.

The largest item in terms of governmental action taken on the initiative of the Minister, rather than action taken as a result of election pledges to abolish car tax or to introduce the £1,000 grant for new houses, is in the area of the grant to the Road Fund. Under subhead M there is provision for an additional sum of £2.6 million on the grounds, as stated by the Minister, that this will provide a certain amount of employment with a consequential effect on the economy overall.

I am a little disappointed that the first Minister for the Environment should cast himself in the role of one of the old liberal and concerned landlords of the 19th century who when faced with the prospect of famine and destitution throughout the country set up road works—in effect, roads going to nowhere—in order to create employment. The reality is that relative to population we have the most extensive system of roads in the whole of western Europe. In Deputy Fitzpatrick's constituency of Cavan-Monaghan, especially in the Cavan part of which I have some experience, the road network is extremely extensive and generally it is kept in exceptionally good repair.

My reason for raising this point is to hope that this attitude to job creation will be a very temporary one. In line with what Deputy Fitzpatrick said, I hope the Minister will take the title to the new Department in a more comprehensive sense and that the need to create employment, with which I have no argument, will be spread over a greater area of environmental works and activities and not simply to road works and the Road Fund. The Minister is new to his post and I am a new Deputy. I am open to correction on a number of my interpretations regarding the Road Fund, but it seems to me that while there is much essential road work to be done, in many cases it could be confined to critical areas. All other things being equal, we could live with the road system in its present form and condition if certain major modifications were made. For example, on a national network system we could give much more active encouragement and funds to essential by-passes which would reduce the time distance between one major centre and another. It would also improve dramatically the environmental quality of towns such as Athlone and others that are plagued by a large increase in vehicle traffic and in the size of the vehicles.

I am asking the Minister to take note of the points I have raised and to reply to them now or in another place and at another time. Perhaps he would come back to this House and give us some indication of his thinking on the matter. It is not enough merely to change the name of the Department and to change eventually the notepaper. The whole re-orientation within the Department is essential. The name "Department of Local Government" was largely an irrelevant name for most of the activities operating from the Customs House. There was a problem of getting a comprehensive title. I think the title "Environment" is as good as one could get but, as Deputy Fitzpatrick has pointed out, it places a particular emphasis on the Minister. This has been stated by him and by the Taoiseach in this House. The Minister has a co-ordinating role for environmental matters and he has ultimate governmental responsibility for such matters.

Perhaps a debate on a Supplementary Estimate is not the place to try to define precisely such matters. I should like to see the Minister increasing the estimate to An Foras Forbartha in order to produce a White Paper or a position paper on the precise role of the Department stating with what areas it is proposed to be involved. The Minister might present the House with a document giving us an idea of how he sees the Department of the Environment evolving over the next three or four years during his period of office. I must limit the period to three or four years because I do not know whether the Minister will be there after that. Such an exercise would be very useful. I am disappointed that the grant to An Foras Forbartha, or some such body, has not been increased to enable the Minister to achieve that sort of strategy planning. I am not aware of it taking place in the Department at present to the extent I should like.

The Minister said in the House, in reply to a question from Deputy Fitzpatrick, that a unit was being set up and the whole thing was under consideration. But "under consideration" can mean a lot of things, not the least of which may be lack of resources and of time. I should like to have seen moneys made available under this Supplementary Estimate so that the Minister might say: "We have a new Department of the Environment. It is essential; it was not included in our manifesto. This is what we would like to do and how we propose doing it." He should detail the kind of priority programme to be implemented over the next three to five years. To get people to carry that out means seconding them from other work; essentially it means money and also creating employment.

I am disappointed that the Minister has not seen fit—I may be wrong in this and perhaps the Minister would clarify the position for me—in his speech to give any indication of any substantial change in the centre of gravity within the Custom House. Excluding party politics altogether, that is a case for genuine concern and, in my view, disappointment. I fully appreciate that the Minister, when in Opposition, was spokesman in another area. I have sufficient grasp of the topics of local government and the environment to realise the extent of my ignorance in this respect and I acknowledge the Minister's task is a difficult and extensive one. A certain amount of time must be afforded any person in that position to come to terms with it. I would hope that by the end of the Minister's first year in office at least we would be in a position to discuss a programme of work and action for his Department, that the Minister, as the first in that Department, would place a document before the House, which we, as Members of the Oireachtas, would be afforded an opportunity of discussing. This would ensure that, irrespective of who else might take up the Ministry in the future, there would be on the record of the House a major discussion on the role of the Department of the Environment.

The Road Fund is the major item in this Supplementary Estimate—there, as I understand it, as a direct result of the Minister's action. The other items are replacement funds for car tax and so on and, finally, there are the housing grants. The whole attitude to the housing grant is an interesting one. I will be very interested to see how effective will be the £1,000 grant. Certainly it was effective in the first context in which it was designed, as an election package. I shall not spill sour grapes on the floor of this House, but it worked well in that regard. It is now a reality. It will be interesting to see if it will improve the way housing is made available in our society; if it will improve justice in the allocation of such housing resources as are available; whether it will contribute towards the Government's major policy objectives and those of the Minister's to the overall improvement of the environment. It could create a situation in which the market would be distorted in favour of new houses as against second-hand ones, in favour of new houses in new areas. This, in turn, would place pressures on environmental services ranging from roads, sewerage and so on to the matters about which Deputy Fitzpatrick spoke that cannot be provided this year by Dublin County Council. I have no objection to the £1,000 grant. I sympathise with the constituent of Deputy Fitzpatrick who was not eligible but it was clear to me he could not have been eligible since he owned a house already. However, by throwing in the £1,000 grant in that fashion, it swayed the market very much in favour of the construction industry— for which it was partially designed— and for buyers of new houses.

I hope the Minister will monitor the effect of this grant, not so much on the number of applicants who apply—and in that context may I congratulate the Minister on simplifying the procedures and the calculation of areas which was a sensible undertaking—but on the housing market. If we are endeavouring to bring about some form of environmental improvement in large urban areas, some increase in financial incentives will have to be made available to the second-hand housing areas, from the building-stock and social composition points of view. This grant is no longer in the realm of manifesto politics; it is a reality. While it has succeeded manifestly in its first objective, I believe it could distort the housing market in a number of ways. The Minister may well appreciate this point having had experience himself in the auctioneering world. It would be very useful to the House, to the Minister's Department and to future Administrations to monitor its effect on the housing market. There have been requests made in the past by, I think, Deputy Keating of Fine Gael and others to try to match the effect of the £1,000 grant with something for secondhand houses or for the repair of houses. Perhaps the Minister would speed up his proposals and come back to the House as soon as possible, because distortion of the market will continue unless the general public is made aware that something else exists also. In that context I am speaking with great experience of the Greater Dublin area and people who wanted to live in certain areas within its boundaries.

I shall deal first with the last question Deputy Quinn raised. The £1,000 grant is working very well. Deputy Fitzpatrick criticised its slow progress and so on. The grant may be allocated and paid only when a house has been completed and occupied unlike the scheme of grants it superseded and when the eligibility of the applicant has been established. Naturally, we shall not have 6,000 grants paid out in the first three or four months.

I am glad to be able to announce that the Government have approved a similar rationalisation of the reconstruction, water and sewerage grants and for generous increases in the present maximum grant.

Since 1972 the maximum reconstruction grant payable by my Department has been £200. Housing authorities could pay a supplementary grant to persons who qualified under their local schemes. In future, housing authorities will not have to contribute in this way towards the cost of private house improvements and my Department will make grants up to a maximum of £600 a house or two-thirds of the cost, whichever is the less. The restriction of the grants to houses below certain valuation limits, which the previous Government introduced, will be ended.

The maximum recouped to local authorities in respect of the special grants which they have been making for the adaptation of houses to make them more suitable for occupants suffering from physical handicap or mental illness will be increased from £400 to £1,200.

My Department also pay grants for the provision of private water supplies and sewerage facilities in houses. The maximum grants have remained unchanged since 1963 at £50 for a water supply and £25 for sewerage facilities. Higher grants at the rate of £100 for a water supply and £30 for sewerage installation are payable where the services are provided as part of a group scheme. Local authorities may pay an equivalent supplementary grant. The supplementary grants in these cases will also be ended, but in future my Department will meet two-thirds of the cost of the works or £200 and £150 respectively, whichever is the less, for individual water and sewerage installations. An additional £100 a house will be paid for each service installed as part of a group scheme. In all these cases the increased grants will be payable in respect of work commenced after 31st October, 1977.

I intend to increase from £200 to £600 the maximum loan which may be advanced without security by a local authority to assist in house improvement works and to allow loans of up to £3,500 to be made in cases where satisfactory security can be provided. The income limit of £3,500 a year which applies to SDA loans will also operate in respect of loans for house improvements. Legislation will be needed to validate the changes in grants and it is my intention to request the approval of this House for the introduction of a Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1977, for that purpose.

Deputy Fitzpatrick will now know that the sum of money which he said Dublin County Council will be unable to provide for reconstruction grants will no longer be their responsibility. The Deputy criticised the percentage rates increase permitted to any local authority, 11 per cent on the non-domestic rate, but he forgot to inform us that the same Dublin County Council, Coalition-controlled last year, struck a rate which was only 5 per cent more than the previous year. A man from his party was chairman at that time. As a result of buoyancy and the change in the system of block grants, Dublin County Council will not be getting an increase on the amount of the block grants of 11 per cent. It will be far in excess of that. They know that, and they should have got their figures right before they handed them to Deputy Fitzpatrick. That Coalition-controlled council last year were satisfied with a 5 per cent increase and now they cannot do with an increase of 11 per cent, or perhaps more. Suddenly they have run out of money.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share